Holiday is a time for reflection. After ignoring current affairs for a few days, and even wondering why I just don't retire and go birdwatching for good (which I probably could in the next year or so if I really wanted to), my thoughts returned to the world I want to improve. Now more refreshed, I realise I am not going anywhere anytime soon.
However, that does not mean that everything needs stay the same. Having already written about the need for appropriate innovation this week, I realised that this blog has changed quite a lot this year. I am not sure that process has ended, as yet. Responses to the questions I asked a week ago have been rattling around in my head whilst binoculars have been pinned to my eyes, and some possibilities have emerged.
The strongest of these is a tangential response to the strong opinion offered that the comments on this blog add considerable value to it. This has led me to wonder whether some of those who comment more regularly, and maybe some others who I know, might become regular contributors of posts to the blog.
I stress, I have asked no one as yet if they want to do this. Nor am I doing anything more than floating an idea at the moment.
There are a number of things to add before asking for opinions. First, I would not expect there to ever be more than one such post a day.
Second, the posts would all be subject to an editorial oversight by me.
Third, they would all have to fit the broad themes of this blog.
Fourth, they would also have to, if addressing technical issues, need to do so in accessible ways.
Fifth, decorum would be required. Writing a column is very different to writing comment pieces.
Sixth, the fact that the column was not by me would be highlighted. They would all have that made clear in the title. I suspect they would be called ‘Viewpoint' articles.
Seventh, if the idea does not work it would not be continued.
So why do this? The plus for me is that I am under less pressure to think something up every day (although that is rarely a problem). The downside is having to edit what is offered.
The upside for everyone else should be a variety of opinions, adding to the overall strength of the blog, I hope.
The risk is a loss of continuity.
Logically, I would post some polls at this point to ask for opinions, but for reasons I cannot yet comprehend the polling software did not work this morning. So, might you comment on this idea instead?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Certainly worth a try
I value your blog highly.
You suggest ‘some of those who comment … might become regular contributors’. I tend to think ‘occasional contributors’ might be more appropriate than ‘regular contributors’ – the too-much-to-read danger.
Your seven observations all look sound. Maybe an eighth: keep it concise.
A ninth for your consideration: writers are welcome to bash Tory ‘policies’ if they believe them to be unwise, but not to bash ‘Tories’ (or any other). ‘Tories’ etc. need to read and be convinced by the sort of compelling logic and evidence that you so frequently offer.
Thanks
And I like point nine
I also would like to read about how the UK tackles problems vs. how other 1st world nations tackle the same problems.
Being a politically active Yank, I always try to look “outside” of my box for new ideas.
Abolutely attack the arguments. The 9th protocol is the most important. Not just Tory either.
Just two wee quote from Reeves FT interview-
“There’s no substitute for business investment, business innovation — it’s not government that creates jobs in towns and cities across the UK,”.
“I don’t think more taxes is the way to create greater prosperity. I’m firmly of the belief we have to grow our way there.”
Debunking is more powerful when positions such as these are presented, than a facepalm emoji and an expletive or two..
I doubt that such a rigid dogmatist for the mainstream will ever be convinced – but others can be persuaded and make counter arguments.
“the comments on this blog add considerable value to it.”
Well, yes, a thousand times yes. But break down that phrase, and what stands out for me is **on this blog**. You not only provide a home for comments *but also a focus*.
Mike (P?) with his knowledge on energy production could provide whole pamphlets on the National Grid, John Warren ditto on Scotland, PSR could set the accommodation problem to rights. But… while providing vital information, and I love them for it, they wouldn’t necessarily lodge with general readers because we have no context within which to assess their arguments.
You already, very occasionally, contact writers and reproduce their personal replies, with permission, here. I think this works well and fits within the general tenor of your thinking and expression because you link the post to an earlier article.
Rather than a Viewpoint category for *ad hoc* submissions, could it be instead the result of your acting as a Commissioning Editor, requesting extended pieces (from those who have volunteered) to elaborate on your initial offering with detail and greater depth than your general blog could have room for?
I was that way inclined….
I think, Anne, your opinion is sensible.
Richard’s time is too valuable to be sorting through submissions.
I used to follow Craig Murray’s blog. He often had a different point of view and some personal experience. But IMHO it has become a ghetto and refuge for Putin apologists, many of whom seem to have little grasp of the rules of evidence or balanced argument. The potential danger for people who are prepared to challenge mainstream ideas, is that they can attract fanatics as well as freethinkers. The former often being more persistent.
We know a number of people try to troll here and while Richard allows other points of view, he rightly stops them from posting again.
Thanks
I think it’s a fine idea.
Anne Cruise’s thought that having your role be that of Commissioning Editor for the “Viewpoint” or “{Some Other Kind of Individual Column Header}” articles has much merit. Those contributors Anne mentions are the ones many of us will have thought of in this connection (maybe with a couple of other additions), and notes that they already have “beats” in the journalistic sense – that may be a good way to think about arranging/labelling commissioned articles.
Most such “beat” articles out in the world include a 25-50 word bio which is intended to supply context for the information in the articles, limited to the relevant expertise.
“Kaal has a PhD in Outrageous Truth Manipulation and lives on Planet Earth where most of the political events he analyses occur. Much of his published work combine the two aspects of his expertise in what is colloquially known as Science Fiction.”
Interesting idea.
I reguarlarly (couple of times a year) contribute op-eds to Euractiv – but this tends to be limited due to the effort needed & also, they perhaps do not want me to become a dominant voice. Thanks for the kind comments Mrs Cruise & the commissioning editor idea is good.
One recent energy event is the HoC select committee on energy – 99 submissions (all public) – some very interesting – and some orgs came out with surprising viewpoints (e.g. Adam Smith mob coming out with stuff with which I agreed! – most odd). Most submissions were along the lines: we can’t go on as we are.
Idea: summary of thinking on elec/energy reform.
Please do it!
That will get on
I view myself as a responsive poster and this is the only blog I post on because I work full-time. I don’t even have the view that I blog or sub-blog here at all. I just say what I feel in response to the material which is always relevant to my life, well argued and well researched.
I wanted to do book reviews and submit them to Progressive Pulse but I don’t have the time for that either. I’m just really busy if I’m honest clinging onto my job. If I was retired or something this might be different.
I do my best to be technical but I mostly really react emotionally and also because I read a lot. I don’t view myself qualified to blog on anything to be honest (except perhaps what is happening in social housing). I have no reputation or any status in economics or finance and even housing.
The foundation of this blog was that it was based on Richard’s work – his research projects – which I understood he did full-time. Also, this research and his work about tax justice etc., was allied to his pro-active campaigning with some very effective people which gave this blog its credibility. I do not see how I can add to the blog’s credibility if I’m honest and also think that credibility needs to be upheld.
And then there is my leadership style. I like to lead from the back if I’m honest – like a shepherd – despite my big mouth -and feel better adding support to more upfront leaders. You need a finesse about you these days leading from the front and I don’t think that I have a style that will go down well at all. ‘Blunt’ does not describe it. How about ‘brutal’? It’s what happens to working class boys like me who dare to read books – we become intellectual thugs. Frankly I’m more likely to punch a Tory than debate with it.
There are some seriously serious people here whom I have no right to rub shoulders with. But all I bring here is what I have seen/see, what I have felt/feel and what has happened/ is happening around me and try to tie this into Richard’s blogs to add value or reinforce/confirm.
Thanks for the ‘references’ but I must keep my feet firmly on the ground. I have affordable housing schemes in play at work that if I can finish will provide 77 new affordable homes adding to the 112 I’ve already been involved in. It’s not much but my only actual achievement and it’ll take all my energy and guile just to do that in the next 3 years, such are the struggles we face.
Thanks PSR
For me one of the reasons I read this blog most days is partly that it conveys a very personal – and often passionate – voice. And I am happy to accept the mix of blogs based on serious analysis alongside others which which reflect your wish to respond at the time to some item in the news. Alongside the occasional one which reminds us you are human with a family life and hobbies.
But the comments as well as the blog have also been very educational to me, and in that context I see no problem with occasional guest blogs by those regular commenters who obviously have significant expertise in particular areas. However I strongly endorse the suggestion of Joe above: one or two of those commenters have taken the regrettable habit of referring to individual politicians in insulting terms. I would much prefer to think that this website is a place for intelligent discussion of ideas, the idea that debate can be done by hurling insults at others is just accepting the approach used by populists like Trump (other examples of populist politicians can be found closer to home). It devalues their contributions.
Noted
Thanks
An excellent idea which could be trialled and developed.
I support the commenter who mentioned the time element. Please keep yourself as main contributor, but occasionally invite pieces from commenters with particular expertise.
Noted
There’s room for a bigger picture. For me there are three main topics I return to time after time Money – Morality – Markets (both political and economic). You could set up a separate posting section for views on these three themes but make clear you are not moderating them and they don’t necessarily represent your views. No comments should be allowed to avoid abuse but comment reference would of course be available in response to your posts. Your time and insights are too valuable to be further spread out than they already are.
I am not quite sure I follow your suggestion……
Have you ever thought about a Podcast? Appreciate it would take a huge effort but there are some very good companies out there who I’m sure would be very keen to talk to you. I think there’s a huge potential audience waiting to be educated Richard.
I have tried – but it needs rethinking
It seems to me that your idea is already partially happening . i read your blog nearly every day , often it takes an hour or so and i find the comments equally interesting .
The comment from PSR above is exactly where i would align myself , spot on in fact . Reinforce , confirm , feel , see , angry , upset , helpless , sad , are all words i recognise . This blog gives me a small amount of hope to cling onto . Having just finished reading these 4 books read in this order …… The Capital Order by Clara Mattei , A Nation of Shopkeepers by Dan Evans , Rentier Capitalism by Brett Christophers and finally Weaponising Anti Semitism by Asa Winstanley you realise the World is Full of Vested Interests which the vast majority of us are unaware of or unable to influence .
But we have to try
Thank you
I just wish this blog could be the generally recognised reference point for BBC etc political and economic commentators – it seems to be almost there as with Richard’s invitation to R4 . I’m thinking of trying some kind of campaign to get the BBC’s stupid ‘impartiality’ eidtorial policy added to or modified – with a remit back to the originas ‘to educate and inform’ – ie to seek the truth – as investigative journalism should.
Only yesterday – on BBC little or no no mention of the extremist Israel government actions and half a million illegal dwellings as at least part of the explanation for Hamas’ stupid rockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VatYrw0uqjU
Found this very interesting , Yanis talks about Money creation amongst other things.
I like what you do. I think it’s valuable and wish your audience was wider. It’s wider than it was by a good bit and that’s a considerable achievement.
If you chose to do things differently that’s fine by me. I don’t these days comment often because I don’t believe I have much (anything?) of consequence to say, but I appreciate your effort and determination to present an alternative view of the political landscape we all live with and will miss it if or when you decide you have had enough.
I read and appreciate the contributions of many of your regular followers. The occasional troller is interesting because it serves to remind me (us all) why you bother to keep doing this.
Thanks Andy