Podcasts about Ramsay MacDonald

Slashing the winter fuel allowance, maintaining the two child benefit cap, cutting international aid, cutting the civil service, axing NHS bureaucracy, possibly slashing welfare expenditure... you'd be forgiven for thinking the Conservatives were in power. But no, these are all policies pursued by the current Labour government. So on today's Saturday Shots Cindy Yu asks Michael Gove and James Heale, is Keir Starmer a Tory? While Michael admits to giving Starmer a 'painful' two cheers, he does say there is historic precedent for Labour government enacting right-leaning measures: from Jim Callaghan's migration policies to the economic ones of Ramsay MacDonald. How has Starmer got away with it? And what does his premiership of pragmatism tell us about the future direction of Labour? Michael sets out a number of tests to judge Starmer's success by: the tests of Fraser Nelson, Robert Jenrick, Ernie Bevan, Denis Healey and Bob Mellish...  Produced by Patrick Gibbons and Cindy Yu.

Slashing the winter fuel allowance, maintaining the two child benefit cap, cutting international aid, cutting the civil service, axing NHS bureaucracy, possibly slashing welfare expenditure... you'd be forgiven for thinking the Conservatives were in power. But no, these are all policies pursued by the current Labour government. So on today's Saturday Shots Cindy Yu asks Michael Gove and James Heale, is Keir Starmer a Tory? While Michael admits to giving Starmer a 'painful' two cheers, he does say there is historic precedent for Labour government enacting right-leaning measures: from Jim Callaghan's migration policies to the economic ones of Ramsay MacDonald. How has Starmer got away with it? And what does his premiership of pragmatism tell us about the future direction of Labour? Michael sets out a number of tests to judge Starmer's success by: the tests of Fraser Nelson, Robert Jenrick, Ernie Bevan, Denis Healey and Bob Mellish...  Produced by Patrick Gibbons and Cindy Yu.

The Labour Representation Committee aimed to secure parliamentary representation for labour candidates, funded by trade unions. Ramsay MacDonald was appointed secretary, and six years later it adopted the name Labour ...

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theflyingfrisby.comToday, we are going to look at gold, bitcoin, and our way of playing it, MicroStrategy (NASDAQ:MSTR), which has now 10xd (!) since we first covered it last year. Amazing.Finally, there'll be a short update on gold miners. Remember them?Let's start with gold.Gold - and most other metals - has been hit since the U.S. election last week. It's down $200, or about 7%, with U.S. dollar strength being a big factor (the dollar has been storming higher since October).While I think this bull market might be punctured, as I put it last week, and that gold probably has a bit further to fall, I am not unduly worried. 2024 has hitherto been a great year for gold, and it remains an essential long-term core holding.It is an even more essential holding for UK investors. I think sterling has big problems ahead of it, and gold serves as your hedge against crap governments.If you are thinking of buying gold to protect yourself in these uncertain times, I recommend The Pure Gold Company. Pricing is competitive, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe or you can store your gold with them. More here.Labour or Tory - I'm no fan of either. They're both as bad as each other, in my view. The less government there is, the better things run. But that's irrelevant idealism. Of greater concern here is reality: there has never been a Labour Government that did not devalue sterling.* Blair and Brown crashed sterling in 2007-8 (though until then their record was okay);* Under Wilson, Callaghan, and Healey, we ended up going to the IMF in 1976. Callaghan and Wilson also devalued in 1967.* Cripps and Attlee devalued in 1949.* Ramsay MacDonald's National Government, which followed Labour from 1929-31, took us off the gold standard in 1931.Why should this Labour Government be any different? If anything, it is even less competent. Sterling devaluation is coming. How exactly might not yet be clear. I rather suspect it'll be an attempt to make us competitive against an ultra-streamlined US, but that's just a guess. You must own some gold (and some bitcoin) in such an environment: non-government money.Gold under Trump - What Gives? What's coming?

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.theflyingfrisby.comToday, we are going to look at gold, bitcoin, and our way of playing it, MicroStrategy (NASDAQ:MSTR), which has now 10xd (!) since we first covered it last year. Amazing.Finally, there'll be a short update on gold miners. Remember them?Let's start with gold.Gold - and most other metals - has been hit since the U.S. election last week. It's down $200, or about 7%, with U.S. dollar strength being a big factor (the dollar has been storming higher since October).While I think this bull market might be punctured, as I put it last week, and that gold probably has a bit further to fall, I am not unduly worried. 2024 has hitherto been a great year for gold, and it remains an essential long-term core holding.It is an even more essential holding for UK investors. I think sterling has big problems ahead of it, and gold serves as your hedge against crap governments.If you are thinking of buying gold to protect yourself in these uncertain times, I recommend The Pure Gold Company. Pricing is competitive, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, US, Canada and Europe or you can store your gold with them. More here.Labour or Tory - I'm no fan of either. They're both as bad as each other, in my view. The less government there is, the better things run. But that's irrelevant idealism. Of greater concern here is reality: there has never been a Labour Government that did not devalue sterling.* Blair and Brown crashed sterling in 2007-8 (though until then their record was okay);* Under Wilson, Callaghan, and Healey, we ended up going to the IMF in 1976. Callaghan and Wilson also devalued in 1967.* Cripps and Attlee devalued in 1949.* Ramsay MacDonald's National Government, which followed Labour from 1929-31, took us off the gold standard in 1931.Why should this Labour Government be any different? If anything, it is even less competent. Sterling devaluation is coming. How exactly might not yet be clear. I rather suspect it'll be an attempt to make us competitive against an ultra-streamlined US, but that's just a guess. You must own some gold (and some bitcoin) in such an environment: non-government money.Gold under Trump - What Gives? What's coming?

The ‘flapper election' took place on 30 May 1929. The reference was top ‘flappers', fashionable and slightly shocking young women of the 1920s, who could vote in it because, at last, universal suffrage had been introduced for all adults of 21 or over irrespective of sex or property. The Tories, who'd made some moves, perhaps rather more modest than many might have hoped, towards alleviating property and had been responsible for the reform that gave the flappers the vote, might have hoped to be returned to office in gratitude. They weren't. Instead, Labour, the biggest single party but again short of a majority, formed a second government under Ramsay MacDonald. As before, and like the Baldwin government that preceded it, it tried to cut public spending. The economy remained stuck in the doldrums and then, after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, it tanked. Workless numbers soared. In 1931, MacDonald decided that the only way to keep reducing spending was to cut unemployment benefit. That was unacceptable to the majority of Labour. The party split over the issue, a split confirmed when MacDonald accepted the king's plea to stay on as Prime Minister but at the head of a ‘National Government' including ministers from all three the main parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberal. It in turn went to the country, as the National Government, seeking a ‘doctor's mandate' to cure the nation's ills, on 27 October 1931. The results were spectacular: the National Government was returned to power with a colossal majority, 554 seats out of the total of 615 in the House of Commons. They were disastrous for official Labour, to a rump of just 52 seats. But the picture wasn't particularly encouraging for MacDonald either. He headed a group with an unassailable majority. However, among the government's MPs, 470 – a majority of the Commons on its own – were Conservative. His own so-called National Labour group only had 13. He was in office all right. But he was also trapped. He could do nothing without the support of the overwhelming Tory majority. Illustration: Ramsay MacDonald, the Prime Minister, (right), in a detail from a 1931 photo of the National Government cabinet by Press Associations Photos, with Stanley Baldwin (left), the Tory leader whose clear Commons majority of his own made him the real power behind MacDonald's throne. National Portrait Gallery, x184174. Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

We pick up the story just after the defeat of the 1926 British General Strike. It was a bad time for the unions, with strikes accounting for only just over a fifth as many working days lost in the whole of the next ten years as they had in the single year of 1926. Meanwhile, the Labour Party seemed to be cosying up to some strange people, specifically Lord Londonderry, Tory and coal mine owner, who became a close friend of the Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald. It was also a bad time for the progressive movement, with the Baldwin government bringing in some fairly oppressive legislation, especially against unions and the Labour Party. There were, however, exceptions, in particular the introduction of universal suffrage for all adults (21 years and over) irrespective of sex (oddly enough brought in by a particularly tough Home Secretary, ‘Jix' (William-Joynson Hix). Neville Chamberlain also brought in some new social legislation, reducing the retirement age for contributory pensions and extending benefits to widows and children of workers who died. The effect was small but welcome. This was also the time when Churchill was riding high and increasingly in rivalry with that same Chamberlain, as they positioned themselves as potential successors to Baldwin for when he eventually retired. What Churchill didn't seem to realise, however, was that though he'd won most Tories round to his return to their party, too few of them trusted him enough to accept him as leader . The heir apparent, he would discover, wasn't him, it was Chamberlain. Illustration: Ramsay MacDonald, Labour leader (left), with his friend, the anti-Socialist and mine owner Lord Londonderry. Detail from a 1933 photograph by an unknown photographer. National Portrait Gallery, x198393. Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter's publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Chanak crisis of 1922 brought Britain to the brink of war with Turkey. Saner heads, in particular those of both the British general on the spot and the Turkish leader, Mustafa Kemal, soon to be Turkish president as Kemal Atatürk, defused the crisis and averted war. But Lloyd George's handling of the crisis, in which he took a distinctly hawkish stance, added further to the growing dissatisfaction with him as Prime Minister, and with his Coalition government, among rank and file Conservatives. That came to a head in the Carlton Club meeting in October, which voted for the Conservative Party to contest the forthcoming general election as a separate organisation and not merely a component of a Coalition. Both anti- and pro-Coalition ministers felt they had to resign from the government. The pro-Coalition Austen Chamberlain even gave up the leadership of the Conservative Party. Lloyd George, realising that his government was no longer viable, resigned. In the subsequent election, the Tories won themselves a strong working majority. The outcome for the Liberals was disastrous: they were overtaken by Labour which became the official opposition. Never since have the Liberals formed another government of their own, at best being a minor partner in someone else's. Bonar Law, who had returned to the leadership of the Tories, became Prime Minister. That didn't last long: cancer finished him within a few months, at which point he was succeeded by a Conservative who'd played a leading role in ending the Coalition, Stanley Baldwin. He and Ramsay MacDonald who had, in the meantime, again won the leadership of Labour, would dominate British politics into the mid 1930s in their rivalry and, sometimes, their collaboration. Illustration: Kemal Atatürk, who led the Turkish forces fighting for the independence of his country, inspecting troops in June 1922. Public Domain Music: Bach Partita #2c by J Bu licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License

In January 1924 Ramsay MacDonald, the son of a farm labourer, strode into 10 Downing Street as prime minister - and changed the nation's political landscape for good. David Torrance tells Spencer Mizen about Britain's first Labour government, revisiting successes, failures and a complex relationship with the establishment. (Ad) David Torrance is the author of The Wild Men: The Remarkable Story of Britain's First Labour Government (Bloomsbury, 2024). Buy it now from Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wild-Men-Remarkable-Britains-Government/dp/1399411438/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=&tag=bbchistory045-21&ascsubtag=historyextra-social-histboty The HistoryExtra podcast is produced by the team behind BBC History Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In January 1924, Ramsay MacDonald entered 10 Downing Street as Britain's first Labour prime minister. As Richard Toye reveals in today's Long Read, MacDonald's rapid rise stunned his rivals, but it wasn't long before they were preparing their revenge... HistoryExtra Long Reads brings you the best articles from BBC History Magazine, direct to your ears. Today's feature originally appeared in the January 2024 issue, and has been voiced in partnership with the RNIB. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of the podcast Will is joined by Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and the author of A Century of Labour. They discuss the Labour Party's relationship to Ramsay MacDonald, Labour in the 1950s and 60s and the USSR, Keir Starmer's place in the ideological traditions of the Labour Party, the Attlee government's agenda and the mythologising of political figures. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Aus der Wahl zum Britischen Unterhaus vom 6. Dezember 1923 gingen zwar die Tories unter Stanley Baldwin als stärkste Kraft hervor, verfehlten aber deutlich die Mehrheit, die sie sich versprochen hatten. Und so kam es zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte Englands zu einer Regierung unter der Führung der Arbeiterpartei, der Labour-Party. Ramsay MacDonald bildete im Januar 1924 eine Minderheitsregierung, die von den Liberalen toleriert wurde. Diese hatte allerdings auch nur bis zum November 1924 bestand. Die BZ am Mittag hatte ihren politischen Redakteur Gustaf Kauder nach London entsandt und der schickte einen launigen Bericht von der „historischen Woche“ nach Berlin, in der die Lords und Gentlemen aufatmen konnten, da die Ernennung eines Premierministers der Labour-Partei nicht zu einem Zusammenbruch der alten Sitten und Gebräuche des britischen Parlamentarismus führte. Für uns liest Frank Riede.

It's 100 years since the election of December 1923, which led to the formation of Britain's first Labour government under Ramsay MacDonald.How did the illegitimate son of a crofter come to lead a cabinet of socialist 'wild men', and has history judged him fairly? Matt is joined by Patrick Maguire, author David Torrance and Ramsay MacDonald's granddaughter Iona Kielhorn.Plus: Columnists Rachel Sylvester and Tom McTague discuss the chances of Nigel Farage making a political comeback, why Keir Starmer praised Thatcher's 'drive', and what do we mean by success? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the podcast Will is joined by Nick Thomas Symonds, Labour MP for Torfaen, Shadow Minister without Portfolio and author of Attlee: A Life In Politics, a new edition of which was recently published. They discuss Attlee's early life, his involvement with the Stepney Boy's Club, his service in World War I, his time as Mayor of Stepney and PPS to Ramsay MacDonald, his leadership of Labour and his time as a reforming Prime Minister. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Robert Walpole, first Lord of the Treasury, moved into 10 Downing Street on 22nd September, 1735, after three years of renovations. Although initially given to him as a personal gift from the King, the house became the official residence for all future Prime Ministers. Despite its central location in London, Downing Street wasn't fashionable at the time, and the house already had a long history of structural issues due to soft ground, leading to constant repairs. Over time, the original yellow bricks designed by Sir Christopher Wren turned black because of pollution from smog and smut. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly review the negative opinions of generations of PMs towards the nation's primary grace and favour apartment; explain why Ramsay MacDonald dispatched his daughter down to the January sales; and reveal how Margaret Thatcher's very 80s aesthetic choices resonate with international visitors to this day... Further Reading: ‘The Surprising History of 10 Downing Street' (HISTORY, 2016): https://www.history.com/news/the-surprising-history-of-10-downing-street ‘Sir Robert Walpole moved into Downing Street today in 1735' (The Oldie, 2021): https://www.theoldie.co.uk/blog/sir-robert-walpole-became-the-first-pm-300-years-ago-today-david-horspool ‘Inside Downing Street: A brief history of No.10' (The Times Red Box, 2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfHqQqImcc #1700s #UK #Politics #Architecture Love the show? Join 

In a Fabian-Socialist context, the term “conspiracy” originated with the conspirators themselves. It was freely used by early Fabians like H. G. Wells (“The Open Conspiracy”) and their close collaborators. Lenin and other Russian communist leaders who enjoyed warm relations with the Fabians, were so fond of it that they carried on referring to their party as “conspiratorial” long after they had seized power.Indeed, as amply shown by numerous critics, Fabian-Socialist strategy and tactics fit the accepted definition of conspiracy: historically, the Fabian Society has seen itself as an elite group that uses stealth as a means to establish socialism, i.e., nationalisation, abolition of private property and total state control over society. Ramsay MacDonald, an early Fabian, Labour Party ideologue and future Prime Minister of Britain, wrote that the state must “feel and think for the whole of society”.Email us: thefacthunter@mail.comWebsite: thefacthunter.comShow Notes:https://fabiansociety.wordpress.comFabian Society Historyhttps://whyterabbit.medium.com/fabian-society-8803a7002ad6More Covid BShttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-covid-2023-variant-eg5-strain-what-to-know/https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/22/covid-novavax-vaccine-eris-variant.htmlCantor Fitzgeraldhttps://www.cantor.com/our-company/leadership-team/Howard Lutnickhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_LutnickAtlanta-based Morris Brown College says they are reinstating Covid mask mandates.https://www.instagram.com/p/CwOoEpvtSLk/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

It has been said that the past is another country, but the events we discuss in this episode feel all too familiar. Media interference in elections, Russian influence on Western politics, controversial immigration policy and the technology industry are all as close to the top of the agenda today as there were in 1924. Today Violet is joined on a tour back to 1924 by the celebrated writer Simon Winchester. Simon is one of the great literary figures of his generation. His career as a journalist and an author spans the past half century, from reports on the Troubles in Northern Ireland to pioneering works of creative non-fiction like Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded. Born in Britain, in this episode he joins Violet from his home in rural Massachusetts. Simon's latest book, which has just been published, Knowing What We Know, The Transmission of Knowledge from Ancient Wisdom to Modern Magic takes us from ancient Babylon to Chat GPT, analysing many of the subjects that are discussed here. For more, as ever, visit our website: tttpodcast.com. Also, if you want to have a look - here's the Sandisfield Times! Show notes Scene One: 25 October 1924, the Zinoviev Letter is published in the British press, setting Ramsay MacDonald and the Labour Party up for election disaster. Scene Two: 1924. In New York City, the creation of IBM – International Business Machines. Scene Three: 1924. In Washington, the Asian Exclusion Act passes through Congress, enshrining anti-immigration policy and racism into law. Memento: IBM ‘golf ball' font attachment for typewriter. People/Social Presenter: Violet Moller Guest: Simon Winchester Production: Maria Nolan Podcast partner: Ace Cultural Tours Theme music: ‘Love Token' from the album ‘This Is Us' By Slava and Leonard Grigoryan Follow us on Twitter: @tttpodcast_ See where 1924 fits on our Timeline

British historian and biographer Nick Thomas-Symonds MP is in Sir Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet and will play a key role in any future Labour government.  Here he speaks about the giants of Labour Party history: Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, and Harold Wilson.

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.

Given that we live in an era roiled by concerns about how democratic supposedly democratic countries actually are and when skepticism abounds about how truly representative our electoral systems are, a scholarly study of debates on many of these issues among leading theorists of democracy in Victorian Britain is just the ticket. That is what is on offer in Gregory Conti's book Parliament the Mirror of the Nation: Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian Britain (Cambridge UP, 2019). Conti employs the tools of the fields of political theory and political and intellectual history to render vivid and touching the fierce debates among such well-known figures as John Stuart Mill and Walter Bagehot, as well as “in-between” figures such as Thomas Hare (1806–1891). Fierce in terms of the sometimes cruel lampooning of their respective opponents and touching in that many of the proponents of these proposed reforms (e.g., proportional representation and the single transferable vote) were convinced that their nostrums would usher in a golden age for Britain's parliament and, thereby, the nation. Note, though, that for many of the figures in this book it was the proper workings of Parliament and its capacity for reasoned deliberation that they cared about, not so much democratic processes per se in terms of how representatives got elected to it. Indeed, much of what was advocated was designed to keep certain groups out of Parliament and government generally. For many of the thinkers discussed in this book, Parliament in its member makeup should mirror the composition of the nation at large. This was particularly true of adherents of the variety-of-suffrages theory who pined for the hodgepodge of electoral constituencies (especially those in the countryside that were controlled by aristocrats and which were derisively referred to as “rotten boroughs” or “pocket boroughs”) that prevailed before passage of the Reform Act of 1832. Bagehot was of this school. Others, like Mill and Hare, were enamored of the rather complex system of proportional representation, believing that it would militate against what they saw as the evil of too much power devolving to political parties, which they feared would be dominated by intellectually inferior plebians. The word “swamped” was often used. Finally, there were straight-up democrats such as the future leader of the Labour Party and future prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, who opposed proportional representation as fundamentally elitist and a hindrance to robust debate and effective government. Conti's book is a fascinating exploration of a relatively neglected period in the history of discourse on what democracies need to thrive, who should be allowed to vote, how voting should be done and whether votes mattered so much as seats in Parliament. There were even arguments that if some people did not get to vote but their interests were represented, that was good enough. Let's hear from Professor Conti himself about this lively period of democracy talk. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

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

In this episode of the podcast Will is joined by Nathan Yeowell, Director of Progressive Britain and Labour to Win, to discuss a new book which Nathan has contributed to and edited entitled Rethinking Labour's Past. They discuss some of the key figures in the history of the Labour Party such as Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson and how they impacted the history of the Labour Party; Labour's relationship to the Democrats in the US and why Nathan decided to compile the book in the first place.  You can buy this excellent book from Bloomsbury here: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/rethinking-labours-past-9780755640164/#:~:text=A%20captivating%2C%20kaleidoscopic%20collection%2C%20packed,future%20of%20the%20Labour%20Party. If you use the code PROGRESSIVE35 via Bloomsbury you will be able to get a 35% discount on the book. 

Two Stories of Politics, Peace and Gold on this episode with two main topics. "Side A" of this episode is about Ramsay MacDonald, the first Prime Minister of the UK for the Labour Party what was in the 1920's considered the most radical elements of society. He becomes the sometimes forgotten proponent of the special relationship with America. "Side B" is about the 1982 Gold Commission, The obscure commission which during the Reagan administration and with the support of Alan Greenspan, put the nail in the coffin on 19th century ideas of the gold standard, but not without some consideration and a few arguments till today. Oh and we get into a U.S. operation known as Operation Goldfinger. We have a patreon at www.patreon.com/mhcbuyp if you'd like to support us. Music by Lee Rosevere's excellent Music for Podcast and Music for Malls Remember we are part of Airwave Media Network. Check out other podcasts at airwavemedia.com Want to advertise on this podcast - contact sales@advertisecast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode challenges romanticized notions of British rule in India with the eyewitness account offered by C. Subramania Bharati in his extended English-language essay, "The Political Evolution in the Madras Presidency."  Bharati's article should quickly curtail any nostalgia for empire. It is a stunning narrative of the reality of colonialism in the southern part of India - a story that has been virtually forgotten by the world, but that now demands a fresh hearing in our current time of reckoning with injustice. Even more than police repression, Bharati dwells on the chilling hypocrisy of the British government, which claims free speech and individual rights as core British values, only to deny them to their own colonial subjects. The episode features an extended passage from his essay, as well as a brief excerpt from a second of his essays dealing with colonial rule, entitled "Police Rule in India: A Letter to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald."  Percussion by tabla maestro Bickram Ghosh and ghatam maestro V. Suresh in a spectacular "jugalbandhi" brings together North and South Indian classical traditions, symbolizing Indian cultural unity. Executive Producer and Host: Mira T. Sundara Rajan Engineer: Emma Markowitz Producer: Bradley W. Vines Music Credits: Drums of India, Bickram Ghosh on Tabla and V. Suresh On Ghatam. Subscribe to Bickram Ghosh's youtube channel.

Iain Dale talks to author and historian Robert Waller and the life and Premierships of Labour's first Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. He served as Prime Minister for 9 months in 1924, then from 1929 to 1931 as leader of a minority Labour government, and then from 1931 to 1935 as Prime Minister of a National government.

Can you swap Dairylea Lunchables for MDMA? What are the best colour of trousers? Who was the Naziest radio presenter in the 1930s? Jake Yapp & Natt Tapley & Lizzie Roper find out in today's Date Fight!

5 czerwca 1929 roku Ramsay MacDonald został po raz drugi premierem Wielkiej Brytanii. Postać tego brytyjskiego polityka zupełnie przepadła w mrokach dziejów, zapewne dlatego, że lepiej pamięta się jego następców, takich jak Chamberlain czy Churchill.

As Boris Johnson edges his Brexit Deal a bit further than Theresa May did – but not much – MPs Sam Gyimah and Phillip Lee lift the lid on the tatty trade-offs that had to happen in Parliament for Johnson to claim a victory. They’re joined by special guest IAN DUNT of politics.co.uk and the Remainiacs podcast for an uncut look at the underbelly of Parliamentary politics. Why does passing the Deal mean more – and worse – squabbling over Brexit than we’ve already got? How are Conservative and Labour MPs deceiving themselves? Why does Macron’s hardman posturing on Brexit add up to bad politics at home in France as well as on the European stage? Is the Deal just a trapdoor to No Deal? Can Ian persuade Sam and Phillip to start reading comic books? And just how many packets of Nobby’s Nuts can these guys consume? All this and the Ghost of Ramsay MacDonald too. Listen up. You don’t get political discussion like this on Radio 4. “This government knows how to come up with pithy one-liners and hashtags – but it’s no way to govern a country.” Audio production by Alex Rees. Producer: Andrew Harrison. Theme music: ‘The Wind-Up’ by Brian Lipps, under licence from premiumbeat.com. ON THE HOUSE is a Podmasters production. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ramsay Macdonald, Labour's first Prime Minister, chosen by Shaun Ley. In 1931 Ramsay MacDonald went to see the king in order to resign. George V persuaded him to stay, and a story of party betrayal began. Broadcaster Shaun Ley and journalist Anne Perkins pick though events that have a contemporary ring as the political class of the thirties struggled to cope with fast moving events. MacDonald's own story and background is remarkable too - illegitimate son, born in Lossiemouth in Scotland, he is remembered as one of the early founding fathers of the Labour party, and a man who bravely spoke out against the First World War. The presenter is Mathew Parris, the producer in Bristol is Miles Warde.

9 June 2019 The Day of Pentecost John 20:19-23 + Homily 17 Minutes 14 Seconds Link to the Readings: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/060919-day.cfm (New American Bible, Revised Edition) From the parish bulletin:   While experience cautions theologians against the quicksand of politics, politicians not infrequently rush in to theological matters where angels fear to tread. So it was on May 29 when our junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, announced on National Public Radio that the Church is wrong about abortion, homosexuality, and the male priesthood. This puts her at odds with all the saints and doctors of the Church, and with Jesus Christ. The latter sent his Holy Spirit on Pentecost to lead the Church into all truth, and it is hard to believe that he has reversed himself in our Republic’s recent years. Since it is “impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18), he would be at a disadvantage were he to run for the Senate from New York. This would be a trifling matter were it not for the fact that Senator Gillibrand tells Catholics that she is a Catholic.    On various issues, Gillibrand has boasted about her “flexibility.” This was evident when, as a Congresswoman representing a district populated by hunters, she enjoyed a 100% approval rating from the National Rifle Association, but when she became a senator, she got an “F” rating from that same NRA, which she has since theatrically described as “the worst organization in this country.” Such flexibility reminds one of Ramsay MacDonald, whom Churchill likened to the Boneless Wonder of Barnum’s circus, a spectacle that his parents judged “would be too revolting and demoralising for my youthful eyes.”    This mendacity became more egregious in a Fox News town hall televised on June 2 when she said that “infanticide doesn’t exist.” The senator’s comments, aired by numerous media outlets across the political spectrum, ignored the “late-term” abortion bill signed by Governor Cuomo on January 22, as he sat next to Sarah Weddington, the attorney who lied before the Supreme Court during the Roe v Wade case. Gillibrand then defended the “right to make a life and death decision.” But if there is no infanticide, there is no death. This is not a mistake the Holy Spirit would have made, but it does reek of the Father of Lies. The senator’s rant was the rhetorical equivalent of a clumsy saboteur, like Claudius in Hamlet, fatally “hoist with his own petard.”    Last Sunday in Romania, Pope Francis beatified seven bishops who were martyred after unspeakable tortures during the Communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceaușescu. They died in defense of the same Faith that Senator Gillibrand has said is flawed. During the beatification ceremony, the Pope warned against “new ideologies” that threaten to uproot people from their “richest cultural and religious traditions.” He said that there are “forms of ideological colonization that devalue the person, life, marriage and the family” and the faithful must “resist these new ideologies now springing up.” Because of their obedience to the Spirit of Truth, those beatified martyrs will never be known in history as Boneless Wonders.

After crossing to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, this Who Am I round of trivia will roll back the years on the life of an incredible actor born during the era of Ramsay MacDonald and his time as the UK Prime Minister.Don't forget to check out the YouTube channel or hit up the website for free printable trivia rounds to study or present.

After crossing to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, this Who Am I round of trivia will roll back the years on the life of an incredible actor born during the era of Ramsay MacDonald and his time as the UK Prime Minister. Don't forget to check out the YouTube channel or hit up the website for free printable trivia rounds to study or present. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pubquizprep/message

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter's publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter's publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com.

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter’s publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter’s publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter’s publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter’s publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Zinoviev Affair is a story of one of the most long-lasting and enduring conspiracy theories in modern British politics, an intrigue that still resonates nearly one-hundred years after it was written. Almost certainly a forgery, the so-called Zinoviev Letter, had no original and has never been traced. Notwithstanding, the Letter still haunts British politics. It was the subject of major Whitehall investigations in the 1960s and 1990s, and it even cropped up in the British media as recently as during the Referendum campaign of 2016 and the 2017 general election. The Letter, addressed to the leadership of the British Communist Party, encouraging the British proletariat to greater revolutionary fervor, was apparently sent by Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Communist International in September 1924. Sent to London through British Secret Intelligence Service channels, the Letter’s publication by the Daily Mail on October 25th 1924 just before the General Election humiliated the first ever British Labour government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald, when its political opponents used it to create a “Red Scare” in the media. Labour blamed (erroneously) the Letter for its defeat, insisting there had been an establishment conspiracy, and many in the Labour Party have never forgotten it. The Zinoviev Letter has long been a symbol of political dirty tricks and what we would now call “fake news”. Now, former Chief Historian at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr. Gill Bennett, who headed up an official inquiry into the Zinoviev Affair in the late 1990s, takes another look at this matter in a fascinating book, The Zinoviev Letter: The Conspiracy that Never Dies (Oxford University Press, 2018). Employing research skills honed by forty-years work at the Foreign Office, Dr. Bennett entrances the reader with this still fascinating detective story of spies and secrets, fraud and forgery, international subversion and the nascent global conflict between communism and capitalism. Charles Coutinho holds a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The war saw a transformation of politics at both elite and popular level. This led to the Liberals being replaced by Labour as the main party of the Left. The last purely Liberal government came to an end in 1915. The inter-war leaders, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald,...

Sue Lawley's castaway this week is Dame Norma Major. In her book on the Prime Minister's residence, Chequers, she revealed how Neville Chamberlain would spend time measuring the girths of his favourite trees, and how Ramsay MacDonald chopped wood every morning dressed in plus-fours. She herself was uncomfortable there, and she remembers the loneliness and stress of being the country's First Lady. She says her love of music, and her work for charity helped her through the tough times. [Taken from the original programme material for this archive edition of Desert Island Discs]Favourite track: Norma by Bellini Book: Nine Tailors by Dorothy L Sayers Luxury: Solar laptop

Sue Lawley's castaway this week is Dame Norma Major. In her book on the Prime Minister's residence, Chequers, she revealed how Neville Chamberlain would spend time measuring the girths of his favourite trees, and how Ramsay MacDonald chopped wood every morning dressed in plus-fours. She herself was uncomfortable there, and she remembers the loneliness and stress of being the country's First Lady. She says her love of music, and her work for charity helped her through the tough times. [Taken from the original programme material for this archive edition of Desert Island Discs] Favourite track: Norma by Bellini Book: Nine Tailors by Dorothy L Sayers Luxury: Solar laptop