The battle of the middle of the road political podcasts

Every morning I listen to a podcast on my walk, and more often than not it's a UK political podcast. Where once they were sparse, there are now huge numbers of middle of the road podcasts to suit my taste - but I have found that some old favourites have become less appetising, displaced by newcomers.

The first to drop off its perch was the BBC's Newscast. I'm generally a supporter of the BBC, if not the licence fee (or some of its recent news reporting), but the whole point of a news podcast is to be able to be more informal and get away from the restraints of conventional media. The presenters of Newscast are certainly informal, but they dance around issues because of the BBC's efforts to keep to its sometimes strange ideas of what being impartial is. Also they rarely dig into anything with the depth that a podcast can offer - they cover too many topics, as they aren't pure politics.

The second that I'm losing patience with is The News Agents. I always really enjoyed Emily Maitlis and Jon Sopel as the heart of the BBC's Americast (which was a lot better than Newscast) - initially, their podcast with Lewis Goodall was a comparable mix of entertainment and insight. However, its middle-of-the-road positioning seems to have drifted to the left - Goodall particularly has some left-of-Labour views that can come through strongly, and it seems to have lost the idea that a podcast has to be entertaining as well as informative. Interestingly, their US spinoff (without Goodall) is much better.

A podcast I've only dipped into recently is the fairly longstanding The Rest is Politics. The concept seems appealing - it brings together a Labour and a Conservative ex-politician - Alastair Campbell, Labour's former spin doctor, and former junior cabinet minister Rory Stewart to chat over political issues, able to debate the topic from both sides. Unfortunately, I find both of them irritating and self-congratulatory, and they are both almost identically placed on the political spectrum, so there is no real debate. That's another one for the dustbin.

I've replaced The Rest is Politics with what could have been an upstart copycat: Political Currency. The format is very similar, but first of all this gives us two top end former politicians, the ex-Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne, and the ex-Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls. They are far more likeable than the other two, have more real experience to draw on, and do actually disagree about things. There was considerable criticism after the first episode - I didn't bother to listen to this, as it was bound to be a bit bumpy, but the remainder have, for me, far outpaced Campbell and Stewart.

A final offering is the podcast I've stayed with longest - Times Radio's Red Box. To those who have an aversion to all things Murdoch, this might seem a ridiculous thing to label middle of the road, but it very much is. Presenter Matt Chorley has a wonderful light touch and sees the humour of politics, while the columnists who open each podcast are always very much middle of the road, but with enough individualism to not always agree. The show then features a 'big thing' item, which varies from an annotated version of Prime Minister's Questions, or a monthly focus group to pieces on unlikely topics (most recently 'secrets of a political cartoonist'), which I often don't think I'll enjoy, but in reality find really interesting.

There are, of course many others out there, but we are seeing a real distinction between the best and the also-rans emerge.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope

Search This Blog