Episode 2 is tonight at 9.30pm! Who knows what might happen! Tune in if you get a chance and let me know your thoughts afterward! Episode 1 is on All4 now if anyone missed it.
2 Likes
Anyone watch Episode 3? Think this was the best one yet!
1 Like
I did but it kinda frustrated me.
The reason is that it seemed like the show had a defined path they wanted the teams to take. The idea that governments around the world donât do things without telling allies is naĂŻve. Why didnât the covert operation work? It might have done. Why were there only two options available for the final part of the task?
The second team ultimately went a different way but the outcome was the same. So why did it matter? They actually managed to reduce domestic panic and got the target so thatâs even better.
With regards to (I think your sister actually), I was annoyed that she was being judged for being somehow hot headed. Do we really think that behind the scenes during crises there arenât people pushing their case? Getting frustrated that things are taking too long to be decided? Of course they are. She was perfectly diplomatic when talking externally even when she was annoyed and ultimately thatâs her job so she deserved praise for it.
Also the judging wasnât consistent. If a PM made a decision decisively and it was the ârightâ decision then they were praised. If they made a decision decisively and it was the âwrongâ decision they were seen as not having taken on board other views. Similarly if a PM discussed with their cabinet on the ârightâ decision they were seen as not being decisive enough and if they discussed it on the âwrongâ decision they were seen as being some kind of pushover.
I also found it rich having Campbell discuss the art of taking a decision based on the information they had at the time in good faith⌠coughIraqcough.
2 Likes
Definitely agree with that! I suspect itâs partially down to the fact that theyâre cribbing together a 45 minute or so episode from in most cases, at least 10 hours of footage per episode.
That may not explain all of it but it surely goes some way towards it. My sis said that in regards to that bit where she was shown as being quite angry, something in specific happened that triggered that⌠But they cut that entire event from the edit and just showed her reaction!
Regardless, I found it to be quite entertaining still.
3 Likes
Finally caught up! Episode 3 definitely the best so far.
Integrity and honesty being key themes was really good, too, I thought.
Favourite quote:
in crisis situations you canât be a pussy.
AlsoâŚ
anyone else think that Jackie Weaver might be a plant?
3 Likes
No way. She can walk, and talk, two things plants canât
4 Likes
Looks like sheâs one of the PMs in Episode 4 so weâre about to find out how much authority she really has 
1 Like
Bit of interesting context from my sis here on some of the stuff you didnât see in the Episode 3 edit.
5 Likes
Then they were really badly represented by bad editing. Knowing that middle ground options were predicated on such things would help explain some of the teamsâ decisions.
I really like the concept of the show, but I worry it makes high level, international politics look âeasyâ as though thereâs just binary choices for really complex issues.
4 Likes
I donât want to speak for the contestants, but I held a Twitter Space right after Episode 3 with Natalie and Verity and that certainly came up.
Most episodes were filmed over 2 to 3 days, so there was potentially up to 24 hours of footage per episode. Thatâs quite a lot to cut down to less than an hour per week, so I get it.
4 Likes
Itâs a frequent refrain from me when Iâm watching the Apprentice or Bake Off or many a TV show contest where thereâs clearly going to be more happening - âWhat didnât we see?â
The job of the company putting the programme out is to take this raw footage and craft a narrative. What they leave out is often as important as what they put in. And is something I try to be aware of instead of just âshouting at the idiots on TVâ, as quite often âI canât believe they didnât do/try/think of Xâ can be explained by âThey did, we didnât see it.â
And thatâs before you get into more subtle manipulation where characters can be crafted as âvillainsâ or âheroesâ by carefully selecting what actions or reactions are shown. Person A is always grumpy, clearly a villain. Person B makes incredibly things, what a hero. But weâre not show what has provoked person A perhaps, and person B has seen their unflattering moments left on the floor to preserve the narrative.
At the end of the day, shows like this are entertainment, not rigid scientific experiments and reflections of reality.
Am reminded of how much I hatedislike the TV show Hunted, because the idea is interesting - yet the show we get is contrived beyond belief. Itâs clearly popular enough that many can forgive the contrivances, but I really canât. Itâs absolutely rigged at every step to force the contestants to expose themselves and keep the hunters on track and close behind.
That said, I do look forward to catching up with this show on All4 soon (I havenât been able to start watching it yet due to having had a fair bit too much TV on my slate).
2 Likes
This is the Jackie Weaver cringe episode
1 Like
My sister tried really hard to tell Jackie that the whole âwear a sweater, turn down your thermostatâ thing was not gonna land with the public but ultimately she said it anyway and paid the price! Donât think it was shown but apparently there was an audible groan from the audience when she went down that path!
2 Likes
See this is where Iâm sort of with Jackie.
Itâs 100% not the answer of course, but in all honesty if youâre cold - put on another layer first. Itâs basic common sense. I was told it constantly growing up.
The public donât like to hear things that they all ultimately either agree with, have been taught to do or actually do.
Turn your thermostat down 1 degree - another basic thing weâve been being told for years.
I groaned when she said it too; because I knew the ever so slightly hypocritical public would take that tiny piece of advice and run with it like it was being lauded as the answer to the energy crisis and like Jackie was suggesting we let poor children freeze to death because they didnât have a jumper to put on.
The answer was also notably what people who were able to were advised to do; I think she said something like âthose of us who can helpâ can do so to aid nationally in reducing energy consumption.
TLDR: itâs basic common sense to grab a jumper or a little blanket when it gets cold rather than waste energy heating your whole home for it.
I disagree, and I wouldnât ever vote for any politician who says so.
People shouldnât have to be uncomfortable in their own homes which putting on another layer suggests. Sure, you donât need to have the thermostat on 28° but putting on another layer suggests 18° or below.
Low temperatures â which I would argue 18° and below are â contribute to health issues, damp, mould. Turning down the thermostat, for most people, just opens a Pandoraâs box of other headaches. And turning it down from 28° to 22° in some houses wonât magically put those extra degrees into homes that need it
I think youâve missed my point.
The fact is that the comment was not aimed at people who are in poverty, rather those who are able to afford more and have got used to simply whacking the heating on when itâs a little cold. Not freezing.
If those people - and I include myself here - didnât use energy when not needed then collectively we can reduce our energy needs.
The issue is that people run away with the comment and blow it out of proportion to start talking about people freezing or choosing to heat over eat. They are not the people the comment is aimed at and in this show Jackie said exactly that.
1 Like
I mightâve not been clear with my point, and I apologise if so.
I am not debating that people who truly do sit around with their thermostats turned to unrealistic temperatures should turn the heat down - but there are a few problems with the âturn your heat downâ message that mean nobody should ever utter those words. Itâs an oversimplification of a very complex message that is therefore easy to misinterpret or take out of context. Itâs political suicide.
To most people, having your thermostat at 24-25 degrees is unimaginable and so they donât really have a baseline to compare it to. I have my house at around 20, but due to humidity and other conditions it means that itâs just about comfortable to sit around in a jumper and to prevent mould forming. Itâs also the minimum temperature Iâve seen advised by experts to avoid health problems. Should I turn the thermostat down further? I donât think so.
Thereâs also the issue of how those extra degrees will get to those who need it. Itâs not like me turning my thermostat down by 1 degree will give that 1 degree to someone who needs it. Those people will still be just as unable to heat their homes. Unless it is explained how the heat will go from my home to the homes of those who need it, many people will struggle to see the benefit if they can afford to heat to a certain temperature to feel comfortable.
And lastly, the way Jackie Weaver said it was particularly tone deaf. IIRC, she didnât say people should put on a jumper. She said people should get their kids to put on an extra jumper. To me that reads as if those kids already wear a jumper but to not freeze they need to wear two, which, letâs admit it, is not reasonable. We do not live in the arctic tundra, we live in a country with a moderate climate. Two jumpers would sound to me ridiculous when you go outside, let alone inside your own home. We do not live in a third-world country, and so we shouldnât be telling people to put on a second jumper.
1 Like
Thanks, though I think we agree on more than we disagree!
1 Like
Thatâs exactly why we donât need anyone in Westminster to tell us to do it
1 Like
