It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
For me Galloway is hard to assess - He is interesting and reckless which to me is good but he does have a sinister side that goes beyond mere panto villain . Meeting with Saddam for instance
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Stats on the subject are notoriously variable, but it seems reasonable to suppose that no less than about 2% of men are gay or bisexual. There's no particular reason to believe that sporting prowess is strongly correlated with heterosexuality - thus, we can estimate that at least 15 players of varying nationalities at the World Cup are into blokes.
I invite you at this point to consider the extremely loud screaming that would've followed if, for arguments' sake, Fifa execs had been paid enough in bribes to award the 1986 edition of the tournament to South Africa rather than Mexico, and then told all the black players to forget about politics and concentrate on the football.
Telling gays to go and play in Qatar is no different, philosophically, to that. It's only the fact that we can't see who any of them actually are that enables all the people who stand to make vast amounts of money out of this revolting circus to try to get away with what they are doing.
It is different in that most countries don't treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality, whereas almost no other country supported apartheid South Africa, so progressive countries in Europe and the Americas would have almost no backing elsewhere if we start to make LGBT an us versus them issue.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Forgive me, but isn’t someone drawing an analogy with Hitler during an online discussion, the end point of the Godwin road already?
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
I would love to see the complexity of that, or lack thereof. Tell me what a doctor's comparison is? There isn't one. A hospital doctor earns a very comparable salary with a partner in a provincial law practice, but additionally is likely to retire on 60% of that salary. Add to that salary many of them also have very lucrative private practice. The "deferred salary" argument is vacuous. It is an attempt to excuse public sector greed on the part of people who are already very well compensated for extremely safe jobs.
I'll try again. When I went into a civil service organization in the days of national bargaining I did some research and found that the salary comparator was made against equivalent private sector posts, and was then carefully downweighted explicitly to cover the different pension schemes.
Basically, they said: "We pay you less now but more in the future."
That IS deferred salary.
I can't remember the exact figure, but it was not trivial: something like 4 to 7% (possibly it varied according to salary level, anyway). Even then, there was a compulsory levy to pay toward the pension scheme, or more correctly pension entitlements.
As for 'safe jobs': where have you been? There have been none in the public sector for the last 2-3 decades, unless you are very good friends with the politicians.
When did you last hear of a doctor getting sacked? Or being made redundant aged 55 and being unable to get another job? Sure, there are such cases in some areas of the public sector, but the risk is much much lower than pretty much all areas of the private sector. I wouldn't worry though Carnyx, MPs and MSPs love the system too so the pension gravy train will continue and the very spurious justifications will continue too.
I don't think you realise how many reorganizations there are those days - with considerable turnover, or even wholesale privatisation.
And most NHS GPs are private contractors, are they not?
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
Point of order: Portillo's head is not going to decompose in a jar of formaldehyde.
Point of order on your point of order Lord Copper, yes it would, just slower than it would decompose in a jar with no formeldahyde. All Damian Hirst's halves of animals are decomposing.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
Not quite sure whether we are doing pensions and/or NHS budgets.
That's really paying off money spent on the national credit card in the past.
My own local trust - Sherwood - was at the point the article linked was written spending 16% of its budget servicing PFI.
The PFI contract for Barts Health trust in London, involving an outlay of almost £1.2bn, is the largest by value in the English NHS. It paid for the building of the Royal London hospital, which opened in 2012 and has 845 beds spread across 110 wards.
However, the entire project will have cost the trust £6.2bn by the time it ends, according to Treasury estimates. Barts spends £116m a year servicing its debt, which is 7.66% of its income, according to the IPPR report.
The 109 contracts still active will cost the trusts involved a combined £2.15bn to service in 2020-21, rising to £2.5bn in 2030, it said.
Sherwood Forest trust in Nottinghamshire has a £326m PFI deal that costs it £50.3m a year in repayments and eats up the largest proportion of its budget of any trust – 16.51%.
University Hospitals Coventry trust spends £89.3m a year on its PFI debt while Manchester University trust’s contract costs it £77.2m.
Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
Whilst you are on, what's your take on the MH17 verdict? Do you accept it?
It's a simple question; I'm sure someone who peruses 'alternative' sources of information such as yourself will be fully briefed.
I haven't got a take on it, because I haven't perused any alternative or even 'ternative' sources of information. I don't know what the verdict was, or who was on trial.
Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
Whilst you are on, what's your take on the MH17 verdict? Do you accept it?
It's a simple question; I'm sure someone who peruses 'alternative' sources of information such as yourself will be fully briefed.
I haven't got a take on it, because I haven't perused any alternative or even 'ternative' sources of information. I don't know what the verdict was, or who was on trial.
Well that's odd, as you were very keen to spew every Russian line on here, however contradictory the li(n)e was with the previous one.
I guess as it's inconvenient and embarrassing, you haven't been following it...
To make it clear: Russia did it. What's more, Russia was behind the 'separatist' movements and the battles.
Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
Whilst you are on, what's your take on the MH17 verdict? Do you accept it?
It's a simple question; I'm sure someone who peruses 'alternative' sources of information such as yourself will be fully briefed.
I haven't got a take on it, because I haven't perused any alternative or even 'ternative' sources of information. I don't know what the verdict was, or who was on trial.
Well that's odd, as you were very keen to spew every Russian line on here, however contradictory the li(n)e was with the previous one.
I guess as it's inconvenient and embarrassing, you haven't been following it...
To make it clear: Russia did it. What's more, Russia was behind the 'separatist' movements and the battles.
Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
Whilst you are on, what's your take on the MH17 verdict? Do you accept it?
It's a simple question; I'm sure someone who peruses 'alternative' sources of information such as yourself will be fully briefed.
I haven't got a take on it, because I haven't perused any alternative or even 'ternative' sources of information. I don't know what the verdict was, or who was on trial.
Well that's odd, as you were very keen to spew every Russian line on here, however contradictory the li(n)e was with the previous one.
I guess as it's inconvenient and embarrassing, you haven't been following it...
To make it clear: Russia did it. What's more, Russia was behind the 'separatist' movements and the battles.
I know that those sites are probably a little too 'official' for you, and you would probably prefer whayteverspewsfromputinsarse.com, but I might suggest you read more of the former, and less of the latter.
Stats on the subject are notoriously variable, but it seems reasonable to suppose that no less than about 2% of men are gay or bisexual. There's no particular reason to believe that sporting prowess is strongly correlated with heterosexuality - thus, we can estimate that at least 15 players of varying nationalities at the World Cup are into blokes.
I invite you at this point to consider the extremely loud screaming that would've followed if, for arguments' sake, Fifa execs had been paid enough in bribes to award the 1986 edition of the tournament to South Africa rather than Mexico, and then told all the black players to forget about politics and concentrate on the football.
Telling gays to go and play in Qatar is no different, philosophically, to that. It's only the fact that we can't see who any of them actually are that enables all the people who stand to make vast amounts of money out of this revolting circus to try to get away with what they are doing.
It is different in that most countries don't treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality, whereas almost no other country supported apartheid South Africa, so progressive countries in Europe and the Americas would have almost no backing elsewhere if we start to make LGBT an us versus them issue.
Wind back another twenty years to 1966, and nobody batted an eyelid about holding the tournament in a declining imperial power that nonetheless still held large tracts of the developing world under colonial rule. Times change.
I don't think that organisations like Fifa can continue to get away with making hollow noises about inclusion and rights for women and various minorities, and then conveniently forgetting about them if offered huge bungs by autocrats, forever. There will come a point, in the not-too-distant future, where some truly hideous despotism like Saudi Arabia buys the World Cup, and the sport will end up fracturing into rival camps, just like we're seeing at the moment with golf.
Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.
He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.
Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Forgive me, but isn’t someone drawing an analogy with Hitler during an online discussion, the end point of the Godwin road already?
Long day and couldn’t be arsed to think of another example… Boris?
I've never seen the show, and a serving MP should probably not go on such a thing, but on the basis they get to show a bit more humanity I'd think most MPs would get a little positive boost from doing so.
Was Galloway a serving MP when he was being a cat trying to do whatever he was trying to do to Rula Lenska?
I think Mad Nad was when she did the reality TV - but TBF she's a chick-lit author for readers of a certain age, and far more ridiculous than Mr Hancock could ever be.
I've never seen the show, and a serving MP should probably not go on such a thing, but on the basis they get to show a bit more humanity I'd think most MPs would get a little positive boost from doing so.
Was Galloway a serving MP when he was being a cat trying to do whatever he was trying to do to Rula Lenska?
I think Mad Nad was when she did the reality TV - but TBF she's a chick-lit author for readers of a certain age, and far more ridiculous than Mr Hancock could ever be.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Three weeks ago, my wife was poorly. Two weeks ago, I was poorly. Last week, my wife was poorly again, and isn't over it yet. Today, I feel like I'm coming down with something again.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
For me Galloway is hard to assess - He is interesting and reckless which to me is good but he does have a sinister side that goes beyond mere panto villain . Meeting with Saddam for instance
Or suggesting that raping a woman while she sleeps is simply "bad etiquette".
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Three weeks ago, my wife was poorly. Two weeks ago, I was poorly. Last week, my wife was poorly again, and isn't over it yet. Today, I feel like I'm coming down with something again.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
For me Galloway is hard to assess - He is interesting and reckless which to me is good but he does have a sinister side that goes beyond mere panto villain . Meeting with Saddam for instance
Or suggesting that raping a woman while she sleeps is simply "bad etiquette".
Three weeks ago, my wife was poorly. Two weeks ago, I was poorly. Last week, my wife was poorly again, and isn't over it yet. Today, I feel like I'm coming down with something again.
Both flu jabbed. Both Covid boosted. A bit shit.
Commiserations.
Still, could be worse. You could be Welsh as well.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
I think Hitler had huge charisma for many of those who knew him personally, such as Goebbels, Speer etc. we find it hard to credit because he was utterly evil, but to those around him, and taking their worldview as it was, I think he exerted an astonishing charisma. For the masses I think both are true. To some extent what he offered chimed with what Germans wanted, but he also had an almost unique ability to control a crowd. Reports of his speeches read like religious experiences.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
That's a great write up- maybe you should be a newspaper columnist !
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
For me Galloway is hard to assess - He is interesting and reckless which to me is good but he does have a sinister side that goes beyond mere panto villain . Meeting with Saddam for instance
Or suggesting that raping a woman while she sleeps is simply "bad etiquette".
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
I think that the 'culture of early retirement' has been in decline for one to two decades, and was an artefact of generous defined benefit pensions.
Not sure how to interpret the numbers, yet at present we have 11 million people over 65, and 1.5 million of them are in employment. Working 22 hours a week on average.
That 1.5 million is roughly double what it was in 2008-2010. Here are stats from 2014:
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
The question is not why they abandoned him as his empire imploded, but why did they follow him for so long?
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
One of the funniest posts I've seen on here!
I like work some of the time, when I'm doing interesting stuff for people I like to my rules.
But, of course, it's rare that people pay you for that all the time.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
I think Hitler had huge charisma for many of those who knew him personally, such as Goebbels, Speer etc. we find it hard to credit because he was utterly evil, but to those around him, and taking their worldview as it was, I think he exerted an astonishing charisma. For the masses I think both are true. To some extent what he offered chimed with what Germans wanted, but he also had an almost unique ability to control a crowd. Reports of his speeches read like religious experiences.
charisma itself is pretty neutral in terms of being a goodie or baddie or just meh in that respect (think Jesus,Hitler and Johnson ) - what it can do though is make you bad if you re not careful as charisma makes people fawn at you and agree with you so you can get big headed and feel more important than you really are and become a God in your own mind
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
90 % of the time I love my job. I don’t consider that I am badly paid, although some on pb might think so (PhD and working in relevant area for 25 years). I’m sorry you have not been as lucky as me. Something from radio 5 this week - at some point in life you’ll get stuck in a rut, make sure the rut is one you like. I did…
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
I think Hitler had huge charisma for many of those who knew him personally, such as Goebbels, Speer etc. we find it hard to credit because he was utterly evil, but to those around him, and taking their worldview as it was, I think he exerted an astonishing charisma. For the masses I think both are true. To some extent what he offered chimed with what Germans wanted, but he also had an almost unique ability to control a crowd. Reports of his speeches read like religious experiences.
charisma itself is pretty neutral in terms of being a goodie or baddie or just meh in that respect (think Jesus,Hitler and Johnson ) - what it can do though is make you bad if you re not careful as charisma makes people fawn at you and agree with you so you can get big headed and feel more important than you really are and become a God in your own mind
DO NOT compare Johnson to Jesus. We don't want to give him any ideas about miraculous comebacks.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
I think Hitler had huge charisma for many of those who knew him personally, such as Goebbels, Speer etc. we find it hard to credit because he was utterly evil, but to those around him, and taking their worldview as it was, I think he exerted an astonishing charisma. For the masses I think both are true. To some extent what he offered chimed with what Germans wanted, but he also had an almost unique ability to control a crowd. Reports of his speeches read like religious experiences.
charisma itself is pretty neutral in terms of being a goodie or baddie or just meh in that respect (think Jesus,Hitler and Johnson ) - what it can do though is make you bad if you re not careful as charisma makes people fawn at you and agree with you so you can get big headed and feel more important than you really are and become a God in your own mind
DO NOT compare Johnson to Jesus. We don't want to give him any ideas about miraculous comebacks.
If Johnson tries to come back now, he’ll be crucified
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
The question is not why they abandoned him as his empire imploded, but why did they follow him for so long?
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
I am playing devil's advocate here, but I find this all a little sussy; an easy excuse.
Say you were a committed member of the Nazi party at a junior level. Is it easier to say:
" Well that Hitler; he was so charismatic! Of course we unquestioningly did what he said!"
or:
"well, I was butthurt from our loss in WWII, and he promised we'd regain our position in the world. Besides, being a member gave me lots of advantages. And he was right: aren't Jews AWFUL? (*)"
I also wonder if many of the top bods in the Nazi party did not stay with him beyond 1944 for reasons of adoration (Goebbels perhaps excepted), but because it was not obvious how they could grab power and get a better result.
If it had been true adoration, many more of them would have joined Goebbels and Hitler as dead bodies in the bunker.
But perhaps to discuss this further, we need to define 'charisma' ...
(*) Obviously an illustrative example, and not my own views.
Just seen that Ros Atkins piece on Qatar. I do love the dry language of official reports and newscasting.
A Fifa inquiry concluded votes weren't sold, but it also found "potentially problematic conduct of specific individuals" as part of Qatar's bid. What we can be sure of, is most of the Committee which took this decision have since been accused, banned, or indicted over allegations of corruption or wrongdoing
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
I think Hitler had huge charisma for many of those who knew him personally, such as Goebbels, Speer etc. we find it hard to credit because he was utterly evil, but to those around him, and taking their worldview as it was, I think he exerted an astonishing charisma. For the masses I think both are true. To some extent what he offered chimed with what Germans wanted, but he also had an almost unique ability to control a crowd. Reports of his speeches read like religious experiences.
charisma itself is pretty neutral in terms of being a goodie or baddie or just meh in that respect (think Jesus,Hitler and Johnson ) - what it can do though is make you bad if you re not careful as charisma makes people fawn at you and agree with you so you can get big headed and feel more important than you really are and become a God in your own mind
DO NOT compare Johnson to Jesus. We don't want to give him any ideas about miraculous comebacks.
If Johnson tries to come back now, he’ll be crucified
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
I think that the 'culture of early retirement' has been in decline for one to two decades, and was an artefact of generous defined benefit pensions.
Not sure how to interpret the numbers, yet at present we have 11 million people over 65, and 1.5 million of them are in employment. Working 22 hours a week on average.
That 1.5 million is roughly double what it was in 2008-2010. Here are stats from 2014:
Anyway, I would contend that the appetite for working reduced hours or retiring outright is greater than it has ever been - hence all the reports of those hundreds of thousands of "missing" workers who have jacked it in during their 50s or 60s. The increase in the total number of older workers is surely an artefact of that fraction of older people who are NOT homeowners being forced to continue in, or go back to, paid employment because of spiralling housing costs, and/or because they've been relegated to rubbish jobs and have been unable to save enough for a comfortable retirement?
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
The question is not why they abandoned him as his empire imploded, but why did they follow him for so long?
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
I am playing devil's advocate here, but I find this all a little sussy; an easy excuse.
Say you were a committed member of the Nazi party at a junior level. Is it easier to say:
" Well that Hitler; he was so charismatic! Of course we unquestioningly did what he said!"
or:
"well, I was butthurt from our loss in WWII, and he promised we'd regain our position in the world. Besides, being a member gave me lots of advantages. And he was right: aren't Jews AWFUL? (*)"
I also wonder if many of the top bods in the Nazi party did not stay with him beyond 1944 for reasons of adoration (Goebbels perhaps excepted), but because it was not obvious how they could grab power and get a better result.
If it had been true adoration, many more of them would have joined Goebbels and Hitler as dead bodies in the bunker.
But perhaps to discuss this further, we need to define 'charisma' ...
(*) Obviously an illustrative example, and not my own views.
Charisma is close to being defined as interesting to others imo by virtue of personality - Of course the great spitting image joke about Steve "interesting" Davis was that he was the snooker player with the least charisma . Even today ,Steve Davis has learnt how to be likeable but its Ronnie O Sullivan who woudl be called charismatic despite not being especially likeable at times
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
The question is not why they abandoned him as his empire imploded, but why did they follow him for so long?
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
Many accounts you read from people who met Hitler mention his eyes - the way they seemed to bore into your soul, to read your innermost thoughts.
Even until the last days, people would be trooping into the bunker, determined to give him bad news, and 10 minutes later would emerge from his presence full of renewed belief in the final victory.
Kershaw, I think, wrote a good book recently about the last year of the war, why they carried on in the face of obvious defeat. His conclusion was that they had no alternative - the leaders knew the extent of the crimes, they had no real alternative than to go down fighting. Himmler’s late volte face was astonishing.
Some of the more realistic top dogs knew the game was up a couple of months into Barbarossa, even before the winter. The Soviet resistance was too strong, progress too slow, losses too high. After that it was just a matter of time. That they clung on for so long is remarkable.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
The question is not why they abandoned him as his empire imploded, but why did they follow him for so long?
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
Many accounts you read from people who met Hitler mention his eyes - the way they seemed to bore into your soul, to read your innermost thoughts.
Even until the last days, people would be trooping into the bunker, determined to give him bad news, and 10 minutes later would emerge from his presence full of renewed belief in the final victory.
Kershaw, I think, wrote a good book recently about the last year of the war, why they carried on in the face of obvious defeat. His conclusion was that they had no alternative - the leaders knew the extent of the crimes, they had no real alternative than to go down fighting. Himmler’s late volte face was astonishing.
Some of the more realistic top dogs knew the game was up a couple of months into Barbarossa, even before the winter. The Soviet resistance was too strong, progress too slow, losses too high. After that it was just a matter of time. That they clung on for so long is remarkable.
I wonder how many people (if any...) around the Russian leadership are feeling like that at the moment?
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
90 % of the time I love my job. I don’t consider that I am badly paid, although some on pb might think so (PhD and working in relevant area for 25 years). I’m sorry you have not been as lucky as me. Something from radio 5 this week - at some point in life you’ll get stuck in a rut, make sure the rut is one you like. I did…
Ahhhh it’s not that bad really, but thank you. I console myself with Baz Luhrmann’s words:
‘The most interesting people I know Didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.’
That’s my problem. I still don’t know what I want to do, and I’m now 44!
Three weeks ago, my wife was poorly. Two weeks ago, I was poorly. Last week, my wife was poorly again, and isn't over it yet. Today, I feel like I'm coming down with something again.
Both flu jabbed. Both Covid boosted. A bit shit.
It's been vaguely playing on my mind for a while now. Are we all just going to be semi-ill all the time after covid? I know so many people who are - at best - 'under the weather' on and off it feels like a never-ending stream. How do HR departments react? Managers? If we're all 10-20% less 'well' than we were before?
I'm hoping it's just the after-effects of lockdowns playing out and in time we'll be back to our regular selves. But it kinda niggles at me all the same.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
I found ‘compelling charm that attracts devotion in others’. Not for me, obviously! Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
Playing devil's advocate, did Hitler have huge charisma, or was it just the message he gave, the fear he inspired in those around him, and the indications he was a winner?
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Hitler definitely had charisma. As did Lenin and Stalin. Stalin's was all the more effective because it wasn't obvious to those around him who were not directly attracted by it.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Some followers may have revered Hitler: but did the people actually around him? For instance, why was Himmler (certainly a very keen follower) so keen to shaft Hitler once Hitler was losing? Or, for that matter, Hess?
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
The question is not why they abandoned him as his empire imploded, but why did they follow him for so long?
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
Many accounts you read from people who met Hitler mention his eyes - the way they seemed to bore into your soul, to read your innermost thoughts.
Even until the last days, people would be trooping into the bunker, determined to give him bad news, and 10 minutes later would emerge from his presence full of renewed belief in the final victory.
Kershaw, I think, wrote a good book recently about the last year of the war, why they carried on in the face of obvious defeat. His conclusion was that they had no alternative - the leaders knew the extent of the crimes, they had no real alternative than to go down fighting. Himmler’s late volte face was astonishing.
Some of the more realistic top dogs knew the game was up a couple of months into Barbarossa, even before the winter. The Soviet resistance was too strong, progress too slow, losses too high. After that it was just a matter of time. That they clung on for so long is remarkable.
I always feel fortunate when we have non-charismatic political leaders. People like Theresa May and Gordon Brown.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
I think that the 'culture of early retirement' has been in decline for one to two decades, and was an artefact of generous defined benefit pensions.
Not sure how to interpret the numbers, yet at present we have 11 million people over 65, and 1.5 million of them are in employment. Working 22 hours a week on average.
That 1.5 million is roughly double what it was in 2008-2010. Here are stats from 2014:
Anyway, I would contend that the appetite for working reduced hours or retiring outright is greater than it has ever been - hence all the reports of those hundreds of thousands of "missing" workers who have jacked it in during their 50s or 60s. The increase in the total number of older workers is surely an artefact of that fraction of older people who are NOT homeowners being forced to continue in, or go back to, paid employment because of spiralling housing costs, and/or because they've been relegated to rubbish jobs and have been unable to save enough for a comfortable retirement?
It's been a continuous trend since the 1990s. Driven I suggest by a combination of life expectancy, increased pension age, changes in pensions schemes - decline of defined benefit and final salary, then collapse of annuity rates, plus augmented by 2008 as you say, and also COVID.
Part of it will be such an artefact, but we need actual numbers to judge how significant a proportion.
2008-2010 was about double 1999, when the number was 450k over 65s in the workforce.
This from 2019:
Workers aged 65 and older will be responsible for more than half of all UK employment growth over the next 10 years and almost two-thirds of employment growth by 2060, according to new figures. ... The number of over-65s who are employed has increased by 188% in the last 20 years, from 455,000 to 1.31 million, and the proportion has grown from just over 5% to just under 11%. In the past 10 years the number has increased from 763,000 to 1.3 million – a 71% increase.
Three weeks ago, my wife was poorly. Two weeks ago, I was poorly. Last week, my wife was poorly again, and isn't over it yet. Today, I feel like I'm coming down with something again.
Both flu jabbed. Both Covid boosted. A bit shit.
It's been vaguely playing on my mind for a while now. Are we all just going to be semi-ill all the time after covid? I know so many people who are - at best - 'under the weather' on and off it feels like a never-ending stream. How do HR departments react? Managers? If we're all 10-20% less 'well' than we were before?
I'm hoping it's just the after-effects of lockdowns playing out and in time we'll be back to our regular selves. But it kinda niggles at me all the same.
I’ve felt like shit pretty consistently since covid too tbf
Work and happiness: There are two well-known companies in this area which do not routinely have help-wanted signs. even after months of a shortage of workers here; Chick-fil-A and Trader Joe's. And when I go into them, I almost always see workers who appear to be happy with what they are doing.
Chick-fil-A's success is, I believe, because their management tries to treat everyone with Christian love. (And the sheer niceness of the people who work there can be a little startling to those who aren't used to it.)
From what i can tell, Trader Joe's tries to do something similar, without being explicitly religious.
All this is just my reminder that whether we are happy working very often depends on who we are working with -- and how they treat us.
Dominic Raab behaved so badly in a meeting with the Home Office during his first stint as justice secretary that his department’s top official had to personally apologise to counterparts afterwards, the Guardian has been told.
Whitehall sources said the deputy prime minister, who is facing two official complaints over alleged bullying, had acted “so badly and inappropriately” at a high-level meeting earlier this year that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was forced to call senior officials of the then home secretary, Priti Patel, to express regret.
One insider suggested the top MoJ official, Antonia Romeo, had taken the highly unusual step of apologising on her minister’s behalf to prevent the incident escalating into a formal complaint. However, it is unclear whether Raab was aware of her actions at the time.
Neither department denied that the apology call had taken place. An MoJ spokesperson said: “The Ministry of Justice works hand in glove with the Home Office and calls between officials to follow up cross-departmental meetings are standard procedure.”
Comments
Without going too far down the Godwin road, Hitler clearly had huge charisma, and inspired devotion in his followers.
And most NHS GPs are private contractors, are they not?
One interesting number is that at present the NHS is spending around £2.3bn a year paying off PFI schemes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/nhs-hospital-trusts-to-pay-out-further-55bn-under-pfi-scheme
That's really paying off money spent on the national credit card in the past.
My own local trust - Sherwood - was at the point the article linked was written spending 16% of its budget servicing PFI.
The PFI contract for Barts Health trust in London, involving an outlay of almost £1.2bn, is the largest by value in the English NHS. It paid for the building of the Royal London hospital, which opened in 2012 and has 845 beds spread across 110 wards.
However, the entire project will have cost the trust £6.2bn by the time it ends, according to Treasury estimates. Barts spends £116m a year servicing its debt, which is 7.66% of its income, according to the IPPR report.
The 109 contracts still active will cost the trusts involved a combined £2.15bn to service in 2020-21, rising to £2.5bn in 2030, it said.
Sherwood Forest trust in Nottinghamshire has a £326m PFI deal that costs it £50.3m a year in repayments and eats up the largest proportion of its budget of any trust – 16.51%.
University Hospitals Coventry trust spends £89.3m a year on its PFI debt while Manchester University trust’s contract costs it £77.2m.
Will make me marginally less irritated if he does get it.
It's astonishing their economy is successful as it is.
I can't see them scoring.
I guess as it's inconvenient and embarrassing, you haven't been following it...
To make it clear: Russia did it. What's more, Russia was behind the 'separatist' movements and the battles.
I never win, except the Grand National which is usually luck rather than judgement.
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2022/transcript-of-the-mh17-judgment-hearing.html
And more info here:
https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2022/the-operative-paragraphs_english.html
https://www.government.nl/topics/mh17-incident
I know that those sites are probably a little too 'official' for you, and you would probably prefer whayteverspewsfromputinsarse.com, but I might suggest you read more of the former, and less of the latter.
Oh, and the following might educate you:
https://www.bellingcat.com/
I don't think that organisations like Fifa can continue to get away with making hollow noises about inclusion and rights for women and various minorities, and then conveniently forgetting about them if offered huge bungs by autocrats, forever. There will come a point, in the not-too-distant future, where some truly hideous despotism like Saudi Arabia buys the World Cup, and the sport will end up fracturing into rival camps, just like we're seeing at the moment with golf.
Portillo has a few years in him yet.
Ooh ooh...
I think Mad Nad was when she did the reality TV - but TBF she's a chick-lit author for readers of a certain age, and far more ridiculous than Mr Hancock could ever be.
Take Putin at the moment. He's our current Hitler, and I wonder if he has any charisma at all. Maybe it comes across in his native Russian language, but to me he appears a charisma-free zone. He's generally blooming good at what he does though, however abhorrent that is (this year's adventures being an obvious exception).
Or Lenin. Or Stalin. Dis their 'charisma' come solely from their power, or were they genuinely charismatic?
Perhaps this actually matters, as genuinely charismatic people can lead thousands to drink the poisoned kool-aid. Whereas those who are not get toppled.
Two weeks ago, I was poorly.
Last week, my wife was poorly again, and isn't over it yet.
Today, I feel like I'm coming down with something again.
Both flu jabbed. Both Covid boosted. A bit shit.
Hitler's followers continued to revere him, in private, long after the collapse of his Reich. Lenin, well, was Lenin. As late as 1986 Molotov would stride around Moscow raving against Gorbachev's attacks on Stalin.
Still, could be worse. You could be Welsh as well.
For the masses I think both are true. To some extent what he offered chimed with what Germans wanted, but he also had an almost unique ability to control a crowd. Reports of his speeches read like religious experiences.
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
Hitler brought them power, and he was safe as long as he could pass parts of that power onto them.
As for Molotov: perhaps that was just an old man trying to justify his own mistakes to a receptive audience?
National humiliation.
Not sure how to interpret the numbers, yet at present we have 11 million people over 65, and 1.5 million of them are in employment. Working 22 hours a week on average.
That 1.5 million is roughly double what it was in 2008-2010. Here are stats from 2014:
More stats here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/peopleaged65yearsandoverinemploymentuk/januarytomarch2022toapriltojune2022#:~:text=In April to June 2022, those aged 65 years and,of 21.7 hours per week.
As for Molotov - it really wasn't. He literally loved Stalin more than he loved his wife.
I like work some of the time, when I'm doing interesting stuff for people I like to my rules.
But, of course, it's rare that people pay you for that all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v_England_(1950_FIFA_World_Cup)
Something from radio 5 this week - at some point in life you’ll get stuck in a rut, make sure the rut is one you like. I did…
Fortunately, my tactic of working hard through school and university so that I wouldn't have to work hard thereafter has generally been successful.
While spending all day on back to back Teams calls is a pita, it isn't hard, manual graft in the cold and wet.
Say you were a committed member of the Nazi party at a junior level. Is it easier to say:
" Well that Hitler; he was so charismatic! Of course we unquestioningly did what he said!"
or:
"well, I was butthurt from our loss in WWII, and he promised we'd regain our position in the world. Besides, being a member gave me lots of advantages. And he was right: aren't Jews AWFUL? (*)"
I also wonder if many of the top bods in the Nazi party did not stay with him beyond 1944 for reasons of adoration (Goebbels perhaps excepted), but because it was not obvious how they could grab power and get a better result.
If it had been true adoration, many more of them would have joined Goebbels and Hitler as dead bodies in the bunker.
But perhaps to discuss this further, we need to define 'charisma' ...
(*) Obviously an illustrative example, and not my own views.
A Fifa inquiry concluded votes weren't sold, but it also found "potentially problematic conduct of specific individuals" as part of Qatar's bid. What we can be sure of, is most of the Committee which took this decision have since been accused, banned, or indicted over allegations of corruption or wrongdoing
(*) Sorry @Anabobazina. (Not really.)
Anyway, I would contend that the appetite for working reduced hours or retiring outright is greater than it has ever been - hence all the reports of those hundreds of thousands of "missing" workers who have jacked it in during their 50s or 60s. The increase in the total number of older workers is surely an artefact of that fraction of older people who are NOT homeowners being forced to continue in, or go back to, paid employment because of spiralling housing costs, and/or because they've been relegated to rubbish jobs and have been unable to save enough for a comfortable retirement?
Even until the last days, people would be trooping into the bunker, determined to give him bad news, and 10 minutes later would emerge from his presence full of renewed belief in the final victory.
Kershaw, I think, wrote a good book recently about the last year of the war, why they carried on in the face of obvious defeat. His conclusion was that they had no alternative - the leaders knew the extent of the crimes, they had no real alternative than to go down fighting. Himmler’s late volte face was astonishing.
Some of the more realistic top dogs knew the game was up a couple of months into Barbarossa, even before the winter. The Soviet resistance was too strong, progress too slow, losses too high. After that it was just a matter of time. That they clung on for so long is remarkable.
‘The most interesting people I know
Didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives
Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.’
That’s my problem. I still don’t know what I want to do, and I’m now 44!
I'm hoping it's just the after-effects of lockdowns playing out and in time we'll be back to our regular selves. But it kinda niggles at me all the same.
Part of it will be such an artefact, but we need actual numbers to judge how significant a proportion.
2008-2010 was about double 1999, when the number was 450k over 65s in the workforce.
This from 2019:
Workers aged 65 and older will be responsible for more than half of all UK employment growth over the next 10 years and almost two-thirds of employment growth by 2060, according to new figures.
...
The number of over-65s who are employed has increased by 188% in the last 20 years, from 455,000 to 1.31 million, and the proportion has grown from just over 5% to just under 11%. In the past 10 years the number has increased from 763,000 to 1.3 million – a 71% increase.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/31/over-65s-to-account-for-over-half-of-employment-growth-in-next-10-years
I think that at the other end, with the surge in University attendance we will have seen a decline in working hours by under 25s.
(Would need to go hunting for stats, but it's a fairly obvious one.)
Chick-fil-A's success is, I believe, because their management tries to treat everyone with Christian love. (And the sheer niceness of the people who work there can be a little startling to those who aren't used to it.)
From what i can tell, Trader Joe's tries to do something similar, without being explicitly religious.
All this is just my reminder that whether we are happy working very often depends on who we are working with -- and how they treat us.
(The Dilbert cartoon often shows the effects of the opposite approach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbert )
Whitehall sources said the deputy prime minister, who is facing two official complaints over alleged bullying, had acted “so badly and inappropriately” at a high-level meeting earlier this year that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was forced to call senior officials of the then home secretary, Priti Patel, to express regret.
One insider suggested the top MoJ official, Antonia Romeo, had taken the highly unusual step of apologising on her minister’s behalf to prevent the incident escalating into a formal complaint. However, it is unclear whether Raab was aware of her actions at the time.
Neither department denied that the apology call had taken place. An MoJ spokesperson said: “The Ministry of Justice works hand in glove with the Home Office and calls between officials to follow up cross-departmental meetings are standard procedure.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/21/top-whitehall-official-had-to-apologise-over-alleged-bad-behaviour-by-dominic-raab