Alex's style is clearly inspired/influenced by Christopher Hitchens. I do sometimes wonder if this similarity, this reminder of his brother, is what caused the Peter Hitchens rage quit.
I think he’s just a bit of a diva really. There are plenty of interviews where he seems to just dislike the interviewer right away and is then incredibly rude to them and decides to be outraged about innocuous things.
The idea that a large majority would empower the fringes of the labour party (or any party is government for that matter) - and lead to them imploding - is completely backward. It is a small majority that empowers the fringes as the leadership always needs their support to get anything past in the house. Large majority governments don't have that problem and can weather backbench rebellions.
I think the idea is with a large majority, the party shift towards its central base to appeal to a broader range of voters. This alienates all of the fringes of the party and with less influence causes big problems by the end of the term, hence why these large majorities can be out in one term
@@bobbyjaybeaumontbut that hasn't happened since the war. 1983 and 1987 the Tory's won large majoritys and won after those. 1997 and 2001 labour won the next elections comfortably. 2019 is the annomoly. It's the one time someone won a good majority (albeit not as good as 83, 87, 97 and 01) and then outright lost. What they propose simply hasn't materialised
@@bobbyjaybeaumontand I'll add to it. The myth about one term labour governments is wrong. Labour have never won an election that got the Tory's put of power and then lost the next election. Oddly the Tory's have between 1970 and 1974 but that's a one off
That final point about the need for representative democracy, no matter how unpalatable you might find that particular party, is a really important. I'm not right wing by any means, but the headlines about the other parties banding together in the Austrian parliament to keep the (right wing) party, which has the largest vote share, out is anti-democratic. And Austria is not alone in this regard - similar stories have arisen in recent years about it happening in other countries. In the UK, it's long been an issue that the first past the post system means we don't have anything even vaguely resembling proportional representation. I voted for the Liberal Democrats in my local constituency but it's utterly absurd to me that they won 72 seats with 12% of the vote (12% works out at 76 seats, so that's actually pretty representative) while Reform won just 5 seats with 14% of the vote (that would work out at 89 seats as an appropriate proportion). Labour got a fraction over a third of the vote, yet all the rhetoric is about them having a "clear mandate" from the British public. Except two thirds of those that DID vote, voted for someone else. That's not a clear mandate at all.
'If you had a large majority it would implode, serve only one term' has Rory forgotten the Blair landslide which was followed by two more successful elections for the party?
And that in 83 and 87 the torys won big majoirtys and won the elections after that. Someone who has won a landslide has never lost the next election since the war. The closest would be the Torys winning in a landslide in 1924 and then losing but it was a weird time because the electorate was constantly expanidng with universal sufferage coming in. Next to that is the Liberal landslide of 1906 going into 1910 but the Liberals won the most seats and formed a coalition with the Irish Nationalists and Labour. Meaning they still won and governed until 1918. The torys did win a
In any discussion about voting systems I find it utterly infuriating how binary the choices are presented between PR and first-past-the-post when in reality there are a plethora of alternate systems. In a UK context it would seem entirely consistent with the constitutional arrangements to have preferential voting. Regard should be had to the Australian system for the lower house where minority governments are relatively rare but there exists scope for independent voices in the senate which is elected by a modified and regionalised PR system
I suspect because it historically was the Lib Dems trying to rig the system to favour them as the "not the other" party. I find it amazing how many people want electoral reform but can't actually describe the system they'd adopt why it would be good (By no means do I mean you!). There're some really big advantages (as well as problems) with first past the post but they're rarely discussed seriously
I think a strong argument could be made for proportional representation in the lower house as a better representation of democracy in action. Minor parties would need to form coalitions to affect a majority government. Now, whether that's a better system in practice is a different question. And yes the Australian senate is proportional representation. The New Zealand lower house has the model that I just described above. New Guinea too I believe.
I agree. As an Australian I'm very comfortable with the preference system we have there, but the Alternative Vote referendum failed here in the UK in 2010. I would love to have heard what Rory thinks of that system. It's not perfect but I feel it is a reasonable compromise between the FPTP and PR systems, especially when the additional upper house system is added in (although it is a bit gameable as we're seeing in Aus in recent years).
Tbf; most of this video isnt about him, its from an hour+ long discussion, hes just clickbaited for views which everyone does (dont hate the player hate the game)
@@TheKrunel As I understand he didn't publish anything until Peter Hitchens made public accusations about him and the interview, at that point it would not seem unreasonable to defend oneself by publishing the discussion.
@philipnorthfield Yep, I understand O'Connor said his motivation was to defend himself, to put out there what happened. He could have done this in a number of ways. It was his choice to publish Hitchens having a meltdown. Just wouldn't without really good reasons - "defending myself" not enough.
@@TheKrunel If an individual is presenting multiple assertions about one personally and their personal conduct during a recorded interview and one refutes that position it would seem entirely reasonable that best method of rebuttal is to publish the interview and let others decide if the allegations were reasonable. That there were other ways to address the accusations is not in doubt, however there were continued written attacks on a public forum having behaved in such a manner and presented the discussion as something else allowing others to decide on the veracity of the accusations seems at the very least perfectly understandable. One would posit that had Mr Hitchens merely requested that the interview not be published that Mr O'Connor would have accepted such a request and the matter been consigned to history, the ferocity of the verbal aggression followed by a public attack would not suggest that such a request was made at least publicly if done so in private and rejected why not make that public too? Should the positions be reversed it wouldn't appear an unreasonable act to have published the interview. Having watched the interview although Mr Hitchens would be well within his rights to have requested it wasn't published or conducted the interview in a very different manner indeed he could have just stated he changed his mind and didn't wish to continue the discussion and politely left. He didn't do this, his conduct was entirely inappropriate highly impolite and worthy of an apology rather than further personal attacks. Having watched and read Mr Hitchens and listened to his positions with interest over the years his conduct in this instance fell far short of the minimum one should expect of such a respected public figure in such a circumstance to then cast further accusations against the interviewer, not to have published the discussion would be intentionally deceptive.
@rkdeshdeepak4131 Show me some of his "far left views." He refused to reverse the 2 child benifit cap! He ain't Labour, or Left😂 he quotes Margaret Thatcher ffs. He is a Tory dressed as Labour. The real Labour party got destroyed from within. Jeremy Corbyn was "fat left," not SIR Tory Starmer.
@rkdeshdeepak4131 Jeremy Corbyn was far left.... Starmer quotes Thatcher and refuses to reverse the 2 child benifit cap...he is about as far left as Winston Churchill was. 😂
@@Stravalnak , I think you'll find you can tell a lot from someone's countenance, it's why they use forensic behaviour analysis for criminal suspects. But I didn't actually refer to his face, did I? It was how he said it, as well.
And lease let your speaker speak. . . What triggered Hitch was that you were tone deaf to what he was talking about and you kept cutting him off. Time how much you are speaking and how much your guest is speaking. . . And how often you cut them off. It’s a little excessive.
I disliked the video just for you. And then blocked the channel so I never have to come back. And turned off all notifications so I won't even know if you responded to me. Enjoy your apples.
@@alphabetaxenonzzzcat He has never “[predicted] the UK’s demise”, he’s simply been observing the slow and visible decline and writing about what things have caused it.
@@alphabetaxenonzzzcatWe’ve been in decline since getting involved in the stupidity of 1914 while failing to invest in our economy repeatedly or badly Take your pick
I have always thought that Alex O'Connor is destined for commentary upon US Politics. It's a kind of maelstrom that it is hard to escape. His profile is pretty good there because he so easily humiliated Dinesh d'Souza. I've been wanting to put that on the record.
good smeagol hates nasty tories
Alex's style is clearly inspired/influenced by Christopher Hitchens. I do sometimes wonder if this similarity, this reminder of his brother, is what caused the Peter Hitchens rage quit.
I think that's a genuine possibly, though I can't decide if that makes his hissy fit funnier or sadder.
I think he’s just a bit of a diva really. There are plenty of interviews where he seems to just dislike the interviewer right away and is then incredibly rude to them and decides to be outraged about innocuous things.
He didn't have an answer about drugs and crime in Portugal and realized he's been outmatched by someone he didn't think was worthy and he snapped.
That’s actually a very interesting analysis.
@@gow2ilove erm they absolutely didn’t.
The idea that a large majority would empower the fringes of the labour party (or any party is government for that matter) - and lead to them imploding - is completely backward.
It is a small majority that empowers the fringes as the leadership always needs their support to get anything past in the house.
Large majority governments don't have that problem and can weather backbench rebellions.
I think the idea is with a large majority, the party shift towards its central base to appeal to a broader range of voters. This alienates all of the fringes of the party and with less influence causes big problems by the end of the term, hence why these large majorities can be out in one term
@@bobbyjaybeaumontbut that hasn't happened since the war. 1983 and 1987 the Tory's won large majoritys and won after those. 1997 and 2001 labour won the next elections comfortably. 2019 is the annomoly. It's the one time someone won a good majority (albeit not as good as 83, 87, 97 and 01) and then outright lost. What they propose simply hasn't materialised
@@bobbyjaybeaumontand I'll add to it. The myth about one term labour governments is wrong. Labour have never won an election that got the Tory's put of power and then lost the next election. Oddly the Tory's have between 1970 and 1974 but that's a one off
That final point about the need for representative democracy, no matter how unpalatable you might find that particular party, is a really important. I'm not right wing by any means, but the headlines about the other parties banding together in the Austrian parliament to keep the (right wing) party, which has the largest vote share, out is anti-democratic.
And Austria is not alone in this regard - similar stories have arisen in recent years about it happening in other countries.
In the UK, it's long been an issue that the first past the post system means we don't have anything even vaguely resembling proportional representation. I voted for the Liberal Democrats in my local constituency but it's utterly absurd to me that they won 72 seats with 12% of the vote (12% works out at 76 seats, so that's actually pretty representative) while Reform won just 5 seats with 14% of the vote (that would work out at 89 seats as an appropriate proportion).
Labour got a fraction over a third of the vote, yet all the rhetoric is about them having a "clear mandate" from the British public. Except two thirds of those that DID vote, voted for someone else. That's not a clear mandate at all.
I won’t tell you which one. Great line
'If you had a large majority it would implode, serve only one term' has Rory forgotten the Blair landslide which was followed by two more successful elections for the party?
And that in 83 and 87 the torys won big majoirtys and won the elections after that. Someone who has won a landslide has never lost the next election since the war. The closest would be the Torys winning in a landslide in 1924 and then losing but it was a weird time because the electorate was constantly expanidng with universal sufferage coming in. Next to that is the Liberal landslide of 1906 going into 1910 but the Liberals won the most seats and formed a coalition with the Irish Nationalists and Labour. Meaning they still won and governed until 1918. The torys did win a
He's sarcastically quoting PH
'Mr Hitchens, I won't tell you which one' 😂 Legend
So legendary
Clearly you were fooled by the charm
@@benwakefield93 Not the nicer cleverer one anyway😉
In any discussion about voting systems I find it utterly infuriating how binary the choices are presented between PR and first-past-the-post when in reality there are a plethora of alternate systems. In a UK context it would seem entirely consistent with the constitutional arrangements to have preferential voting. Regard should be had to the Australian system for the lower house where minority governments are relatively rare but there exists scope for independent voices in the senate which is elected by a modified and regionalised PR system
I suspect because it historically was the Lib Dems trying to rig the system to favour them as the "not the other" party. I find it amazing how many people want electoral reform but can't actually describe the system they'd adopt why it would be good (By no means do I mean you!). There're some really big advantages (as well as problems) with first past the post but they're rarely discussed seriously
I think a strong argument could be made for proportional representation in the lower house as a better representation of democracy in action. Minor parties would need to form coalitions to affect a majority government. Now, whether that's a better system in practice is a different question. And yes the Australian senate is proportional representation. The New Zealand lower house has the model that I just described above. New Guinea too I believe.
I agree. As an Australian I'm very comfortable with the preference system we have there, but the Alternative Vote referendum failed here in the UK in 2010. I would love to have heard what Rory thinks of that system. It's not perfect but I feel it is a reasonable compromise between the FPTP and PR systems, especially when the additional upper house system is added in (although it is a bit gameable as we're seeing in Aus in recent years).
It's the same with many other things. Always so binary. "NHS OR AMERICAAAAAN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE CHAOOOOOOSSS!!!" Comes to mind.
andy serkis let himself go wat da
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
Tories came 4th where I live in Scotland.
It is like a different country.
By seats yes but it was very close. On votes however they were 3rd with 350k VS LD at 250k and SNP at 700k
@@freddiepatterson1045 yeh but Tories got only 12.7% of votes in Scotland vs 25.9% in England.
I too think that Scotland is...like...a different country.
🇬🇧
@@jamesgolightly5320🏴
Interesting and thoughtful analysis of Peter’s view of the Tories.
What's his opinion on drugs?
firmer laws and persecution of addicts etc
He should write a book on that topic. I would be very interested.
Should be Democracy by so valued just for Democracy’s sake?
Moustachehood would arguably be steering a more assured course if it stuck to lips more suited. That aside, this is very ok indeed
Peter Hitchens is pissed off that he’s not his brother
I'm just here to respect his insertion of "fissiparous"
The stache must go forthwith! Unless it is accompanied by the beard.
Omg! Andy Serkis has put on some beef...
Alex is the future Hitchins knows he's already the past. He's such a pompous buffoon.
This guy just won't leave the PH issue alone, with all his alts.
Alex seems to be obsessed by Mr Hitchens.
The way he keeps sniping at him with other guests is such beta behaviour
I he's obsessed with the Hitchens family. He's spent his whole career copying Christopher Hitchens.
@@nickright7747 I don't like him at all.
Tbf; most of this video isnt about him, its from an hour+ long discussion, hes just clickbaited for views which everyone does (dont hate the player hate the game)
Probably my favourite hobbit.
So the question of is PH right to hate the Tories is not answered
Shock Horror 🙄
I love Alex. He should had read the room with Peter, Alex focused on the drugs for too long
Yes, but Peter still behaved in a very immature way
@JoshuaTheBard Yes, he had a meltdown, can happen to anyone. He's 72. O'Connor was more calculatedly immature by publishing the meltdown of a guest.
@@TheKrunel As I understand he didn't publish anything until Peter Hitchens made public accusations about him and the interview, at that point it would not seem unreasonable to defend oneself by publishing the discussion.
@philipnorthfield Yep, I understand O'Connor said his motivation was to defend himself, to put out there what happened. He could have done this in a number of ways. It was his choice to publish Hitchens having a meltdown. Just wouldn't without really good reasons - "defending myself" not enough.
@@TheKrunel If an individual is presenting multiple assertions about one personally and their personal conduct during a recorded interview and one refutes that position it would seem entirely reasonable that best method of rebuttal is to publish the interview and let others decide if the allegations were reasonable. That there were other ways to address the accusations is not in doubt, however there were continued written attacks on a public forum having behaved in such a manner and presented the discussion as something else allowing others to decide on the veracity of the accusations seems at the very least perfectly understandable. One would posit that had Mr Hitchens merely requested that the interview not be published that Mr O'Connor would have accepted such a request and the matter been consigned to history, the ferocity of the verbal aggression followed by a public attack would not suggest that such a request was made at least publicly if done so in private and rejected why not make that public too? Should the positions be reversed it wouldn't appear an unreasonable act to have published the interview.
Having watched the interview although Mr Hitchens would be well within his rights to have requested it wasn't published or conducted the interview in a very different manner indeed he could have just stated he changed his mind and didn't wish to continue the discussion and politely left. He didn't do this, his conduct was entirely inappropriate highly impolite and worthy of an apology rather than further personal attacks.
Having watched and read Mr Hitchens and listened to his positions with interest over the years his conduct in this instance fell far short of the minimum one should expect of such a respected public figure in such a circumstance to then cast further accusations against the interviewer, not to have published the discussion would be intentionally deceptive.
"Left wing politics" Starmer is NOT left wing. He is centre right. The Tory party is 100% right wing.
no, he is far left
@rkdeshdeepak4131 Show me some of his "far left views." He refused to reverse the 2 child benifit cap! He ain't Labour, or Left😂 he quotes Margaret Thatcher ffs. He is a Tory dressed as Labour. The real Labour party got destroyed from within. Jeremy Corbyn was "fat left," not SIR Tory Starmer.
@rkdeshdeepak4131 Jeremy Corbyn was far left.... Starmer quotes Thatcher and refuses to reverse the 2 child benifit cap...he is about as far left as Winston Churchill was. 😂
@@topcat5553 They should get rid of child benefit altogether and start providing stamps/rations for school equipment, clothing and food.
Inshallah I agree 😂
The fact Alex appears bemused about Hitchens' stance at the last election should tell you how unwise and gullible he is.
Oh come on, is that your input? A look on someone’s face?
@@Stravalnak , I think you'll find you can tell a lot from someone's countenance, it's why they use forensic behaviour analysis for criminal suspects. But I didn't actually refer to his face, did I? It was how he said it, as well.
And lease let your speaker speak. . . What triggered Hitch was that you were tone deaf to what he was talking about and you kept cutting him off.
Time how much you are speaking and how much your guest is speaking. . . And how often you cut them off. It’s a little excessive.
Come on now. Sounds like you’re describing Piers Morgan here. Hitchens’s behaviour was beneath his level.
I actively dislike viewers that don't give this video a thumbs up
I believe they are called flat-earthers.
I disliked the video just for you. And then blocked the channel so I never have to come back. And turned off all notifications so I won't even know if you responded to me. Enjoy your apples.
I’m gonna thumbs up now
Don't forget to storm off with your backpack(like a stroppy teenager) and ride your bicycle home.
Peter Hitchens is never right about anything.
That's a stretch there is a long list of things he is and has been right about.
But he has been telling us that he has been predicting the UK's demise for the past 20 years and is "the official biographer of Britain's demise". 😁
@@alphabetaxenonzzzcat A nation state can spend a long time falling apart before everyone agrees it's happening.
@@alphabetaxenonzzzcat He has never “[predicted] the UK’s demise”, he’s simply been observing the slow and visible decline and writing about what things have caused it.
@@alphabetaxenonzzzcatWe’ve been in decline since getting involved in the stupidity of 1914 while failing to invest in our economy repeatedly or badly
Take your pick
How can such a bright person be in such physically poor shape ….
Difficult to lecture others if you haven’t got basic discipline
Haha I don’t think the two things are relevant to one another personally
That wouldn't be a stupid comment if Rory lectured others, particularly with regard to health. Alas.
Who ate all the pork pies?
Rory accomplishes more while taking a dump than you ever will in your whole career my brother
I have always thought that Alex O'Connor is destined for commentary upon US Politics. It's a kind of maelstrom that it is hard to escape. His profile is pretty good there because he so easily humiliated Dinesh d'Souza. I've been wanting to put that on the record.