Planes, Trains and Toilet Doors

Planes, Trains and Toilet Doors - Matt Chorley ****

Matt Chorley is one of the best political radio presenters and podcasters around. His coverage of UK politics is sharp and insightful - but always with a sense of humour. He is also a newspaper columnist, though I confess I find his writing style there sometimes too farcical - but that doesn't apply to this book, which takes in '50 places that changed British Politics'. Although there is humour here (quite strong, for instance, on the infamous venture to Barnard Castle), this is primarily a serious look beyond Westminster at a series of key events in often unexpected locations around the country.

Some are small but significant, such as Gordon Brown getting locked in a toilet. Others involve an event that would change history more directly (or even personally, in the story of Spencer Perceval, the only UK prime minister to be assassinated). Although many of the events were familiar to me as someone with an interest in politics, there was a lot that I never knew - and the whole presents a fascinating insight into the quirks and oddities of our political history.

I was recommended this book by Peter Mandelson (not personally, I hasten to add, but on another excellent podcast hosted by Chorley), and I'm glad I took up his suggestion. It may be (dull sounding) political history, but it's never heavy and very enjoyable. The icing on the cake, which I am sure the author enjoyed, is that at the time of writing, Amazon had it listed as '#2 most gifted in toilet training.'

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

You can buy Planes, Trains and Toilet Doors from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

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 2010 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 exp

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

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog