At the same do Al Murray was also in attendance and can happily confirm that he was a very pleasant, intelligent and engaging man with no airs. Chatted to him for a long while about the brilliance of The Sopranos.
Al Murray was vacationing in France a year or two ago and was invited into the TdF commentary truck for a very engaging half hour or so.
Reports today labour will allow 16 and 17 year olds the vote. Good idea or simple electoral manipulation to their advantage ?
All changes to the franchise are done for electoral advantage, whether they are good ideas or not.
There is I suppose a possible exception in the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, but even then Joynson-Hicks had considerable cover from Central Office who were finding much more enthusiasm for the Tories among women than among men.
Edit - the irony is it is normal for any change to the franchise to be followed by a defeat at the following election. 1868, 1885 (sort of) 1929 and 1970. I will admit 1832 and 1918 as dazzling exceptions.
Isn't it the case that fiddling with the franchise to try and get more of "your" voters added is mostly likely to be done by administrations which think they are going down? If you're wildly popular and have a 80 seat majority, there's no great pressure to find a few thousand more votes, whilst if you're about to lose, straws tend to get clutched.
Not necessarily.
For example, in 1884 Gladstone seemed very likely to win again, and might well have won outright but for the compromise he struck with Salisbury. In 1928 nobody expected the Conservatives to lose to Labour. 1867 is an example of your view I suppose as Disraeli was alarmed if he didn't pass a reform bill that favoured the Conservatives the Liberals would pass one that favoured them. 1969 perhaps as well - Labour were only just emerging from the devaluation debacle of 1967.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
From the BBC’s report:
Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation:
One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
I suggest you open the website of any newspaper/tv station.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
From the BBC’s report:
Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation:
One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
Russell Brand @rustyrockets Jun 30, 2014 "Can you tell what it is yet?" Yes Rolf, it's indecent assault.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Isn't 340 Labour based on around 20 gains from the SNP though? Which would take them back into the 20s.
Good point. OK, 220 Conservatives. For which sensible Conservatives ought to bite off your arm and an earlobe.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
From the BBC’s report:
Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation:
One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
There's going to be dozens more accusations. The bloke was openly promiscuous and at various stages of rehabilitation/addiction during his time as the golden boy, which means the BBC, C4 and any other organisations he worked for are heading for another round of squeaky bum time.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Isn't 340 Labour based on around 20 gains from the SNP though? Which would take them back into the 20s.
Good point. OK, 220 Conservatives. For which sensible Conservatives ought to bite off your arm and an earlobe.
Agreed on this: 220 would be a decent outcome for the Tories and hopefully not see their few remaining grownups kicked out.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
When Big Brother was big, he did one of the shows about it on Channel Four.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
At the same do Al Murray was also in attendance and can happily confirm that he was a very pleasant, intelligent and engaging man with no airs. Chatted to him for a long while about the brilliance of The Sopranos.
Al Murray was vacationing in France a year or two ago and was invited into the TdF commentary truck for a very engaging half hour or so.
Never found his pub landlord thing that funny tbh but he has a broad-ranging intelligence and curiousity that makes him a good conversationalist.
I think he’s got a history podcast out or something; I might give it a listen.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
From the BBC’s report:
Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation:
One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
There's going to be dozens more accusations. The bloke was openly promiscuous and at various stages of rehabilitation/addiction during his time as the golden boy, which means the BBC, C4 and any other organisations he worked for are heading for another round of squeaky bum time.
I can’t, off hand, think of any BBC work he’s done.
EDIT: My lack of radio listening has led me astray.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was famous a while back but seems to have moved online spouting conspiracy theories.
The only accusation I’ve seen online is one of a consensual relationship with a 16 year old. Hardly earth shattering. I presume there’s far more to it.
From the BBC’s report:
Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation:
One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
There's going to be dozens more accusations. The bloke was openly promiscuous and at various stages of rehabilitation/addiction during his time as the golden boy, which means the BBC, C4 and any other organisations he worked for are heading for another round of squeaky bum time.
I can’t, off hand, think of any BBC work he’s done.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Pedant's corner: the electorate will not 'reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE'.
It is a mistake to treat the electorate as a single unit; every individual voter will vote (or not) the way they wish, some reluctantly, some enthusiastically.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
When Big Brother was big, he did one of the shows about it on Channel Four.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
He was *very* famous at the time, and was reasonably big in the US as well. He had some decent-sized roles in big films, guested on The Simpsons etc.
I think the fact that he represented a certain archetype made him an easy shorthand reference point in media as well, which amplified his fame. He was famous for being Russell Brand, primarily, as most of his acting roles he was just being a version of himself.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Was that him doing that ?
Oh dear.
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign ; there's nothing at intrinsically wrong with a couple of a man aged 30 and a woman aged 20.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
So PB reverts to Maths A level calculations to predict the Labour seat total at the next election.
However the overall forecast seems right, a narrow Labour majority rather than a landslide, Starmer PM but with more of a Wilson 1964 mandate than Blair 1997 in the end
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Apparently not.
I don't think anyone is arguing Brand was a Saint, however the question was whether he did anything illegal. That is for the police and CPS to decide and ultimately the courts if they agree
Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
Even if the issue is 'uncancellable notoriety', which I think is a good observation and probably correct, it still represents a form of cultural evolution. A further observation I would make is that 'digging in and fighting' is proving to be a more viable response than 'apologising and asking for forgiveness'. The latter achieves very little and seems to be received only as a display of weakness. Perhaps this is evidence that gender stereotypes are more entrenched than we might imagine.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Apparently not.
I don't think anyone is arguing Brand was a Saint, however the question was whether he did anything illegal. That is for the police and CPS to decide and ultimately the courts if they agree
The most serious allegation was in the US, so it’s not entirely up to the CPS.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enoug'h to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
'...Fascinating/depressing German research tracked 51 populist presidents/prime ministers from 1900-2020 in 60 countries. They are defined as those whose central argument is one of the “true people” v “dishonest” elites, and the bad news is their number has been on the rise for three decades. Worse, once they get into office they tend to stay for twice as long as non-populists. They are annoyingly good at politics, but very bad at economics. The researchers find that having a populist leader hits a country’s GDP per capita and living standards by about 10% over 15 years as the economy turns inward, institutions are undermined and risks are taken with macroeconomic policy.'
i) EQUATION: According to you, L = 176.84 + 2.05*S + 0.36*L(-1), where L=new seats, L(-1)=old seats, S=Relative net leader satisfaction (net satisfaction for Labour leader minus net satisfaction for Conservative leader). I have no idea if it's going to work but by goodness I'm going to remember it. Well done!
ii) SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS. You say "So neither camp is wholly correct, as the hypotheses that c=0 and c=1 are both comfortably rejected at standard significance levels". Fair enough, but did you forget to include the p-values? Or were you taking the mean and standard error of c of 0.36 (0.09) and worked out that the probability that that dist'n included 0 and 1 was less than 0.05?
iii) RNLS. RNLS (Relative net leader satisfaction) is defined as (satisfied with Labour leader minus dissatisfaction with Labour leader) minus (satisfied with Conservative leader minus dissatisfaction with Conservative leader). It's a complex indicator. Would a simpler one such as "satisfied with Labour leader" minus "satisfied with Con leader" have done as well?
iv) N. Was your n=11?
Now go and write another article each month with October's S, November's S, December's S, until the election happens.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Was that him doing that ?
Oh dear.
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign ; there's nothing at intrinsically wrong with a couple of a man aged 30 and a woman aged 20.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Apparently not.
I don't think anyone is arguing Brand was a Saint, however the question was whether he did anything illegal. That is for the police and CPS to decide and ultimately the courts if they agree
The most serious allegation was in the US, so it’s not entirely up to the CPS.
Still up to US prosecutors to decide not the media
Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
Wasn't there an author of a best-selling book around that same time who in similar vein bragged about his promiscuity, and who also became an Alt-Right maverick?
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
When Big Brother was big, he did one of the shows about it on Channel Four.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
He was *very* famous at the time, and was reasonably big in the US as well. He had some decent-sized roles in big films, guested on The Simpsons etc.
I think the fact that he represented a certain archetype made him an easy shorthand reference point in media as well, which amplified his fame. He was famous for being Russell Brand, primarily, as most of his acting roles he was just being a version of himself.
He always struck me as peculiar and peculiarly unpleasant. Which is why, see above, I stopped taking much, if any, notice of him.
I despise Russell Brand and always have. When I was hoping to be a UKIP MP, I daydreamed of being on the same panel on QT so I could rip into him.
So I watched last night hoping for a slam dunk, but it didn’t appear to me that there was one really. Most of it was just people calling him out for the obnoxious, unfunny, ungentlemanly behaviour that they looked the other way at, or encouraged, when he was making them money.
A girl I know is his make up artist/PA, it will be interesting to see what she makes of all this.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was very famous in the mid to late 2000s and early 2010s. Firstly, because he was one of Channel 4's star names - notably fronting their Big Brother Spin-Off and was on loads of panel shows and had his specials. But also did some of the biggest awards shows - BRITs, VMAs, and was also huge tabloid fodder due to his apparently colourful sex life and presence among the Camden crowd. There was a point where he'd be in The Sun most weeks having been seen with some famous young woman or other and would oblige with quotes detailing exploits. Then he became a Hollywood star - albeit he never starred in anything good - and married Katy Perry, one of the world's biggest pop stars. Eventually his Hollywood career foundered as he can pretty much only play Russell Brand and is a very unlikeable screen presence (his comedy often relied on him being an outrageous creep for laughs). So he came back here, said he'd had a bit of a revelation, got into Occupy movement stuff and pitched himself as a left-wing anti-establishment guru - publishing a bestselling book that's basically full of conspiracist nonsense and incoherent ideas. But he was taken seriously by a few people who should have known better because here was a star who was agreeing with them (here's looking at you Owen Jones, the New Statesman). From that he started his YouTube channel, which around the pandemic began pivoting to wellness and nutty right-wing conspiracism instead. Where he now has a major audience - it's notable that the likes of Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson were leaping to his defence before even seeing the allegations. So yes, he's pretty famous across the board, and a really quite troubling figure given it's shown the full extent of what some very powerful people will defend in the name of their pet conspiracy theories.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign [...]
I agree with this. Whatever Brand has or hasn't done I'm really not sure it's right to plaster what amount to criminal accusations on the front page of newspapers.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
p.s. but I still don't believe the December 2019 election provides a safe metric
Boris Johnson reached parts no other can, or ever will again, with his Get Brexit Done anomalous election. There is no likelihood that those people will return to vote Conservatives, or indeed vote at all. Recent opinion polls back me up on this: there is vanishing party allegiance on Brexit, which was the single-issue 2019 election.
There is one final point with respect to your argument on this, that I didn't include in the piece because it's somewhat speculative and also in the interests of length. In previous elections when Labour has done significantly better or worse than the model would predict we have seen a correction at the following election. In 79 Labour got about 20 fewer seats than the model would have given, and in 83 they over performed by about 10 seats. In 05 they really over performed and got about 40 excess seats, and in 10 they got 20 fewer. In 19 they underperferformed by about 20 seats. So in that sense you may be right that the 2019 benchmark is too pessimistic for them and maybe they will overperferform vs the model and get about 10 seats more. As I said, this is pretty speculative, but I think you can see a sense in which you might be right, although any effect is probably limited.
I will admit I am not too clear on your statistical model. However, what about 92, which for obvious reasons is the election of most interest to us here?
In 1992 Labour overperformed to the tune of about 20 seats, relative to the national swing. I don't think anyone would say they underperformed in 1997. In fact, again compared to swing, they overperformed to the tune of around 60 seats.
When I am looking at models, I tend not to delve into mathematical formulas but instead look at patterns (if only because I find parallels more interesting than formulas). This is why I've been saying we shouldn't look at 2019 as an outlier. That share of the vote, and that majority, is comparable to what you would have expected from the second election after the polls in April 2017. You could see it in 83/87, for example, or 55/59.
What disrupted the pattern was a sudden late surge to Labour in 2017 which saw May fall short. And in fact, she was not that short. A few thousand votes in fifty seats and she would have had a big majority. The late swing was also notable as a purely negative vote (just 56% of Labour voters in 2017 approved of the party's policies, which accords well with the c. 25% they were on in the polls before the campaign).
There is a naive belief in some quarters that 'Labour' voters voted Tory in 2019 to resolve Brexit and will now 'drift home.' I live in an area that used to be Labour and I don't see it.* There are many and complex reasons why Labour has been losing support for many years, of which Brexit was as much a symptom as anything. Just as in Scotland the independence movement despite its defeat was a catalyst for a major shift in party allegiance. That now appears to be changing somewhat again - good, because sheep voting for the same parties is bad for democracy and bad for the country - but how quickly this will occur in the North is another issue.
The bigger question is likely to be whether such people vote at all. Turnout might be a profitable market for betting, if there is one. But it may also be key to the scale of Tory losses and thus Labour's chance of a majority.
*Edit - I was caught out by this myself when I expected an easy Labour gain here in 2015. I had misunderstood a lack of enthusiasm for the Tories for 'would return to voting Labour.'
On Teesside there were an awful lot of Labour voters who went Tory. I witnessed some brilliant doorstep altercations where Corbynite activists went into meltdown when He was given as a principle reason why LLLLLLL voters were going Tory.
It remains to be seen if the "major shift in party allegiance" is transient or not. A lot of polls suggest it is, but we won't know until the day. What I do expect is that most of the non-voters who voted Tory will go back to not voting. That in itself will be enough to sink morons like Jacob Young.
Yeah, Redcar must be desperate to get London based Lawyer Anna Turley back in as MP.
London based? She has been campaigning in Redcar almost constantly since she lost. Running a local foodbank and a poverty charity.
I can't see Jacob Young young deploying "I'm local me, and she is from London: and succeeding. What has he done, other than get ignored by "Lord" Houchen and the developers.
My brother lives in that constituency. Has done for 20 years but like quite a few areas of the country people joke about someone still being an outsider even if they've been there that long. But I doubt that's enough to go against the tide.
The Red Wall was trending more blue for quite some time. The Tory hope will have been having finally taken the plunge people will have settled into a new pattern. Sometimes people take a long time to recognise their politics is now X not Y but are very firm once they do recognise it .
I don't get that sense from the polling though. It appears that many of the most recent 2019 shifters instead feel jolted back to the old party by how bad things have been, and even earlier shifters are not firm.
Redcar itself has been a bit different in elections due to local factors, but across the region I think buyer's remorse is more likely than sustained conversion.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Apparently not.
I don't think anyone is arguing Brand was a Saint, however the question was whether he did anything illegal. That is for the police and CPS to decide and ultimately the courts if they agree
As with Savile, Hall etc the main takeaway is that senior executives knew what was happening but did nothing about it. Upset the talent means loss of viewers and revenue, so clearly they should be exempt from normal standards of human behaviour, and the most that can be done is mitigations, such as trying to ensure that young women are chaperoned when in the presence of the talent.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
When Big Brother was big, he did one of the shows about it on Channel Four.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
He was *very* famous at the time, and was reasonably big in the US as well. He had some decent-sized roles in big films, guested on The Simpsons etc.
I think the fact that he represented a certain archetype made him an easy shorthand reference point in media as well, which amplified his fame. He was famous for being Russell Brand, primarily, as most of his acting roles he was just being a version of himself.
He always struck me as peculiar and peculiarly unpleasant. Which is why, see above, I stopped taking much, if any, notice of him.
It was his giving interviews about what a lousy lay Katy Perry was that persuaded me he’s a jerk.
Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
Wasn't there an author of a best-selling book around that same time who in similar vein bragged about his promiscuity, and who also became an Alt-Right maverick?
Some of these men left behind a lot of victims.
It seems to be a common theme across media and the arts.
I am reminded of a Hollywood producer who said that the original Polanski prosecution ruined the party atmosphere in Hollywood.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Apparently not.
I don't think anyone is arguing Brand was a Saint, however the question was whether he did anything illegal. That is for the police and CPS to decide and ultimately the courts if they agree
The most serious allegations would appear to exceed Californian statute of limitations rules.
Giving this ****** such exposure upticks his YouTube income. I always thought him a dirty b******. He has made much of his detoxification and how clever he is to have been "clean" for so long. Personally, I would have had more time for him if he hadn't involved himself in a drug-addled, debauched hedonistic lifestyle in the first place.
Russell Brand strikes me as someone wholly worthy of the application of that four letter word that gets an instant ban on PB.
If anyone didn't know who Russell Brand is there can be no doubt today if they read the newspapers or watch the broadcast media which in its usual way is all over the story and indeed crowding out politics
Anyone who hopes they will move on do not know our media who (being topical) are like a dog with a bone
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
i) EQUATION: According to you, L = 176.84 + 2.05*S + 0.36*L(-1), where L=new seats, L(-1)=old seats, S=Relative net leader satisfaction (net satisfaction for Labour leader minus net satisfaction for Conservative leader). I have no idea if it's going to work but by goodness I'm going to remember it. Well done!
ii) SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS. You say "So neither camp is wholly correct, as the hypotheses that c=0 and c=1 are both comfortably rejected at standard significance levels". Fair enough, but did you forget to include the p-values? Or were you taking the mean and standard error of c of 0.36 (0.09) and worked out that the probability that that dist'n included 0 and 1 was less than 0.05?
iii) RNLS. RNLS (Relative net leader satisfaction) is defined as (satisfied with Labour leader minus dissatisfaction with Labour leader) minus (satisfied with Conservative leader minus dissatisfaction with Conservative leader). It's a complex indicator. Would a simpler one such as "satisfied with Labour leader" minus "satisfied with Con leader" have done as well?
iv) N. Was your n=11?
Now go and write another article each month with October's S, November's S, December's S, until the election happens.
Hi Viewcode
Thanks!
On your point ii yes, if you look at the mean and SD of the coefficient estimate on coefficient c you will see that the both 0 and 1 are confidently outside the 95% CI. Running the regression with relative positive satisfaction rather than relative net satisfaction gives you a worse fit. I think that makes sense. Especially when candidates are unpopular their negatives matter. People voted Tory in 2019 because they actively disliked Corbyn, for instance Yes N=11unfortunately, we don't have elections very often. You have to work with what you have!
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
When Big Brother was big, he did one of the shows about it on Channel Four.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
He was *very* famous at the time, and was reasonably big in the US as well. He had some decent-sized roles in big films, guested on The Simpsons etc.
I think the fact that he represented a certain archetype made him an easy shorthand reference point in media as well, which amplified his fame. He was famous for being Russell Brand, primarily, as most of his acting roles he was just being a version of himself.
He always struck me as peculiar and peculiarly unpleasant. Which is why, see above, I stopped taking much, if any, notice of him.
Which would the peculiar and peculiarly unpleasant - although I doubt they would describe themselves as such.
Modern media is able to find niche markets for most things.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Therein lies the problem and dilemma, along with the well known problem of legislative definition.
A more likely plan is to just bog owners of vaguely large and dangerous dogs down in paperwork, vet fees, mental health assessments, annual training etc fees, so it becomes too burdensome. Then - any problem dog that comes to the authorities attention for whatever reason can be taken away immediately if the correct paperwork isn't in place. Rather than the current situation, where there is nothing they can do unless someone gets hurt.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign [...]
I agree with this. Whatever Brand has or hasn't done I'm really not sure it's right to plaster what amount to criminal accusations on the front page of newspapers.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
Agreed. He sounds like an odious person but there is a due process that should be followed.
I'd rather the Times and C4 investigative journos spent their time unearthing corruption and bankrupt local councils. What has happened about all those dodgy PPE contracts btw?
I think Labour will get across the line, but I disagree with the idea that we're in Sunak's honeymoon period. He didn't get a honeymoon!
Yes that's an interesting question. Personally I think every leader gets a honeymoon and his only way from here is down, but that's something we can track in the data in the coming months.
So PB reverts to Maths A level calculations to predict the Labour seat total at the next election.
However the overall forecast seems right, a narrow Labour majority rather than a landslide, Starmer PM but with more of a Wilson 1964 mandate than Blair 1997 in the end
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
And, depending upon the circumstances, some politicians are able to spread their populist arms to encompass more groups.
For example Clinton and Blair in the 1990s were able to govern during times of economic prosperity and geopolitical security allowing them to give a greater than normal amount of people what they wanted.
As with Savile, Hall etc the main takeaway is that senior executives knew what was happening but did nothing about it. Upset the talent means loss of viewers and revenue, so clearly they should be exempt from normal standards of human behaviour, and the most that can be done is mitigations, such as trying to ensure that young women are chaperoned when in the presence of the talent.
Harry Wallop @hwallop Of all the many shocking things about the Russell Brand story, this detail stands out. The TV industry knew his behaviour. And enabled it. (Via @thetimes / @C4Dispatches )
A couple of further reflections on the thread header:
The model predicts a GE right now would lead to 281 E&W Labour seats (so c. 300-310 Lab in total?). How does that square with a 15-20% Lab poll lead?
Does the level of LD support have any impact on the Conservative outcome?
Yes your first point is a good one. Right now Sunak is a positive for his party and Starmer probably a negative, and that's why we should be wary of thinking the big VI Labour leads mean a majority. But my view is that Starmer's negatives are baked in now while Sunak is still finding his level less than a year into the job. Come election day I think Starmer's advantage will be bigger and Labour will win a majority.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I think Labour will get across the line, but I disagree with the idea that we're in Sunak's honeymoon period. He didn't get a honeymoon!
Yes that's an interesting question. Personally I think every leader gets a honeymoon and his only way from here is down, but that's something we can track in the data in the coming months.
I reckon he had his honeymoon from day 1 (24 October) to the Autumn Statement (17 November). Since then, it's been increasing disappointment building into bubbling resentment. And whilst turning that round is always possible, I don't really see how he does it.
So PB reverts to Maths A level calculations to predict the Labour seat total at the next election.
However the overall forecast seems right, a narrow Labour majority rather than a landslide, Starmer PM but with more of a Wilson 1964 mandate than Blair 1997 in the end
I don't have any A levels but thanks.
I found it to be an interesting approach and, based on the past election results, as good a predictor as you are likely to get with such a limited data set.
I'm seeing on Twitter people saying that Russell Brand is now a hero of the right. Is this true? Has he been on "a journey" or is there something else? The guy always struck me as an idiot, but I'm not sure an exposé like this is the way to go.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Therein lies the problem and dilemma, along with the well known problem of legislative definition.
A more likely plan is to just bog owners of vaguely large and dangerous dogs down in paperwork, vet fees, mental health assessments, annual training etc fees, so it becomes too burdensome. Then - any problem dog that comes to the authorities attention for whatever reason can be taken away immediately if the correct paperwork isn't in place. Rather than the current situation, where there is nothing they can do unless someone gets hurt.
1) Compulsory dog insurance. 2) Fines for not having insurance calibrated at court/polices costs + £5000 3) £1000 reward for information leading to a conviction. Given that reporting people to the police for Facebook rudeness is a thing among the social milieu we are talking of….
A policy that makes money. Sell it as paying for the cost to the NHS of dog attacks.
Lead with a dump to the papers of data on the amount of attacks that require serious medical intervention - I’ve heard report of many, many times fatalities. Lots of life changing injuries.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign [...]
I agree with this. Whatever Brand has or hasn't done I'm really not sure it's right to plaster what amount to criminal accusations on the front page of newspapers.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
Agreed. He sounds like an odious person but there is a due process that should be followed.
I'd rather the Times and C4 investigative journos spent their time unearthing corruption and bankrupt local councils. What has happened about all those dodgy PPE contracts btw?
I don't like Russell Brand. He's always been an obnoxious twat, right from when he was a darling of the left to his new found alt-right incarnation. That said, he deserves a fair hearing but he's already been found to be a wrong 'un in the media court so his fate is sealed. He makes an easy target, though and is famous enough to warrant a lot of interest. Shining light on the PPE contract scandal isn't so easy and gets you in trouble with the government.
So PB reverts to Maths A level calculations to predict the Labour seat total at the next election.
However the overall forecast seems right, a narrow Labour majority rather than a landslide, Starmer PM but with more of a Wilson 1964 mandate than Blair 1997 in the end
I don't have any A levels but thanks.
I found it to be an interesting approach and, based on the past election results, as good a predictor as you are likely to get with such a limited data set.
But the A levels you don’t have - were they from a private school?
I agree that this analysis is probably as far as you can push the maths, given the limited data set. Nice.
I'm seeing on Twitter people saying that Russell Brand is now a hero of the right. Is this true? Has he been on "a journey" or is there something else? The guy always struck me as an idiot, but I'm not sure an exposé like this is the way to go.
I think Labour will get across the line, but I disagree with the idea that we're in Sunak's honeymoon period. He didn't get a honeymoon!
Yes that's an interesting question. Personally I think every leader gets a honeymoon and his only way from here is down, but that's something we can track in the data in the coming months.
I reckon he had his honeymoon from day 1 (24 October) to the Autumn Statement (17 November). Since then, it's been increasing disappointment building into bubbling resentment. And whilst turning that round is always possible, I don't really see how he does it.
The honeymoon wasn't really based on anything more than the sheer fucking relief that La Belle Dame sans Clue had gone. I don't think there is anything like genuine enthusiasm for the little dweeb anywhere.
Great stuff OLB. I'm looking forward to everyone else's take on the analysis. Good motivation to do a little revision too.
I can't remember the PB rule of thumb - is relative net favourability the best metric? Or just relative favourability?
When I ran the regression relative net favourabillity had the best in sample predictive power. I think that is logical. You have four seperate metrics (favourability and unfavourability for each leader) and it makes sense to use all that information. At the same time, you only have a small number of observations to it's sensible to combine them in one variable rather than throwing them in seperately and over-fitting the relationship.
Might I suggest you do what 538 do when modelling US election results: include economic confidence as a predictor.
I've tried this before and found that consumer confidence has no additional predictive power, it's already largely baked into VI or leader approval.
I'm seeing on Twitter people saying that Russell Brand is now a hero of the right. Is this true? Has he been on "a journey" or is there something else? The guy always struck me as an idiot, but I'm not sure an exposé like this is the way to go.
He’s not so much “on the right” as in Conspiracy Corner; but there is a big overlap
There is, of course, equal madness on the left. eg the Trans debate. See here. 1-2 year olds can be “pre verbally trans”. These are serious people discussing this
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
And, that's normally inversely proportional to how misanthropic they are.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
And, depending upon the circumstances, some politicians are able to spread their populist arms to encompass more groups.
For example Clinton and Blair in the 1990s were able to govern during times of economic prosperity and geopolitical security allowing them to give a greater than normal amount of people what they wanted.
I think the difference is how you respond when giving people what they want is impossible, or at least has massive predictable downsides.
The Populist (capital P) answer seems to be to give people what they want now, and damn the consequences. Or blame shadowy forces for thwarting the democratic will. And the article does have a working definition of what Populism looks like, and it's rather uncomfortable reading for the UK;
The researchers find that having a populist leader hits a country’s GDP per capita and living standards by about 10% over 15 years as the economy turns inward, institutions are undermined and risks are taken with macroeconomic policy.'
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I'd ban multiple breeds, and bring back dog licencing.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
The 400,000+ who've signed the petition is evidence of that.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign [...]
I agree with this. Whatever Brand has or hasn't done I'm really not sure it's right to plaster what amount to criminal accusations on the front page of newspapers.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
Agreed. He sounds like an odious person but there is a due process that should be followed.
There's any number of famous people who are not convicted of things but ostracised from their careers due to murky or unpleasant stories about them. After all, even if someone is not guilty of a crime they might be an unpleasant and distasteful person.
So whilst everyone agrees with the point that the courts are the place for the criminal accusations I'm a little baffled why it's this story that is stirring people up about misplaced media priorities.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
When Big Brother was big, he did one of the shows about it on Channel Four.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
He was *very* famous at the time, and was reasonably big in the US as well. He had some decent-sized roles in big films, guested on The Simpsons etc.
I think the fact that he represented a certain archetype made him an easy shorthand reference point in media as well, which amplified his fame. He was famous for being Russell Brand, primarily, as most of his acting roles he was just being a version of himself.
He always struck me as peculiar and peculiarly unpleasant. Which is why, see above, I stopped taking much, if any, notice of him.
It was his giving interviews about what a lousy lay Katy Perry was that persuaded me he’s a jerk.
He also talks like a fourteen-year old boy and is remarkably juvenile in his behavior.
He is intelligent but is also utterly self-obsessed and self-centered so we shouldn't be surprised that he thinks he's the victim.
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
I know the type, too
Selfish idiots, not very bright, see themselves as nice people because “I’m a dog person!”
Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
Wasn't there an author of a best-selling book around that same time who in similar vein bragged about his promiscuity, and who also became an Alt-Right maverick?
Some of these men left behind a lot of victims.
It seems to be a common theme across media and the arts.
I am reminded of a Hollywood producer who said that the original Polanski prosecution ruined the party atmosphere in Hollywood.
Yes, he said that. Out loud. To camera….
Roisin Murphy also appears to be doing very well with her new album despite the music industry's combined attemots to slience her (not that Roisin chose controversy - she made a private comment about puberty blockers that 90% of the population would be in total agreement with, which she subsequently (in my view needlessly) apologised for, but that was enough for a mass pile on .)
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign [...]
I agree with this. Whatever Brand has or hasn't done I'm really not sure it's right to plaster what amount to criminal accusations on the front page of newspapers.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
Agreed. He sounds like an odious person but there is a due process that should be followed.
There's any number of famous people who are not convicted of things but ostracised from their careers due to murky or unpleasant stories about them. After all, even if someone is not guilty of a crime they might be an unpleasant and distasteful person.
So whilst everyone agrees with the point that the courts are the place for the criminal accusations I'm a little baffled why it's this story that is stirring people up about misplaced media priorities.
File under "Bloke who built a career on basis of being a complete degenerate turns out to be a complete degenerate shocker".
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Therein lies the problem and dilemma, along with the well known problem of legislative definition.
A more likely plan is to just bog owners of vaguely large and dangerous dogs down in paperwork, vet fees, mental health assessments, annual training etc fees, so it becomes too burdensome. Then - any problem dog that comes to the authorities attention for whatever reason can be taken away immediately if the correct paperwork isn't in place. Rather than the current situation, where there is nothing they can do unless someone gets hurt.
1) Compulsory dog insurance. 2) Fines for not having insurance calibrated at court/polices costs + £5000 3) £1000 reward for information leading to a
I concur with the OLB potential LAB 340 seats outcome.
This is based on me using the following non scientific approach:
No one likes CON or Rishi anymore
There is no real enthusiasm for Keir or LAB
But the first factor significantly outweighs the second for an electorate to reluctantly give LAB an 8% lead at the GE which will convert into around 340 seats
Another way of looking at it...
340 Labour and 100ish others (40 SNP, 40 LD, 20 NI) leaves 210 Conservatives. So the big two almost, but not quite, swapping scores.
If you offered that to thoughtful members of the blue team, I reckon they'd bite your arm off faster than an XL Bully.
Talking about the latter - the "ban" is seemingly continuing to unravel faster than a stuffed woollen doggie toy owned by one.
Won't be party political though, as SKS also signed up to the Sunak strategy. But it's another high profile Sunakian promise, like boats'n'inflation.
You are weirdly keen for this ban not to happen. Consistently so
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
People can be absurdly sentimental about animals, especially in this country.
Once @Carnyx has watched the Ian Price video he can look at this. The bloodline of half the XL Bullies in the UK
It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of people will sympathise more with the bully dogs, than the people who fall victim to them. There'll be heart-rending tales of poor Satan, who would never hurt a fly, having to be put to sleep.
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
The 400,000+ who've signed the petition is evidence of that.
Plus there is a deeply ingrained belief in many dog owners that if breeds are banned, their Fido will be banned and shot next week.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
And, depending upon the circumstances, some politicians are able to spread their populist arms to encompass more groups.
For example Clinton and Blair in the 1990s were able to govern during times of economic prosperity and geopolitical security allowing them to give a greater than normal amount of people what they wanted.
I think the difference is how you respond when giving people what they want is impossible, or at least has massive predictable downsides.
The Populist (capital P) answer seems to be to give people what they want now, and damn the consequences. Or blame shadowy forces for thwarting the democratic will. And the article does have a working definition of what Populism looks like, and it's rather uncomfortable reading for the UK;
The researchers find that having a populist leader hits a country’s GDP per capita and living standards by about 10% over 15 years as the economy turns inward, institutions are undermined and risks are taken with macroeconomic policy.'
I think this can be right, but we also need to be careful with definitions. Lula was fervently dismissed as a "populist" by publications such as "The Economist", and other self-appointed priests of middlebrow analysis , when he arrived, but he's actually done his country both a lot of social and economic good.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
He was very famous in the mid to late 2000s and early 2010s. Firstly, because he was one of Channel 4's star names - notably fronting their Big Brother Spin-Off and was on loads of panel shows and had his specials. But also did some of the biggest awards shows - BRITs, VMAs, and was also huge tabloid fodder due to his apparently colourful sex life and presence among the Camden crowd. There was a point where he'd be in The Sun most weeks having been seen with some famous young woman or other and would oblige with quotes detailing exploits. Then he became a Hollywood star - albeit he never starred in anything good - and married Katy Perry, one of the world's biggest pop stars. Eventually his Hollywood career foundered as he can pretty much only play Russell Brand and is a very unlikeable screen presence (his comedy often relied on him being an outrageous creep for laughs). So he came back here, said he'd had a bit of a revelation, got into Occupy movement stuff and pitched himself as a left-wing anti-establishment guru - publishing a bestselling book that's basically full of conspiracist nonsense and incoherent ideas. But he was taken seriously by a few people who should have known better because here was a star who was agreeing with them (here's looking at you Owen Jones, the New Statesman). From that he started his YouTube channel, which around the pandemic began pivoting to wellness and nutty right-wing conspiracism instead. Where he now has a major audience - it's notable that the likes of Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson were leaping to his defence before even seeing the allegations. So yes, he's pretty famous across the board, and a really quite troubling figure given it's shown the full extent of what some very powerful people will defend in the name of their pet conspiracy theories.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Fairly sure this is sarcasm but took it at face value and gave it a like.
Perhaps if you had included a random paragraph about AI, dangerous dogs, aliens, w****** or pictures of your breakfast he might have liked your excellent header. Nice work nonetheless, despite these obvious omissions.
Russell Brand. Never have I ever... seen Russell Brand on telly. I never had Sky or any satellite or cable channels back in the day. I'm just wondering if Brand is quite as famous as journalists think he is. Did MTV's reach extend that far?
Russell who?
Jo Brand's brother ?
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
Do you not remember the wanker who called up Andrew Sachs live on the radio to tell him that he’d shagged his granddaughter?
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign [...]
I agree with this. Whatever Brand has or hasn't done I'm really not sure it's right to plaster what amount to criminal accusations on the front page of newspapers.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
Several of the allegations listed upthread took place in the USA too.
I think Labour is on course for a clear majority and it won't even be close.
Tend to agree. It’s hard to imagine how disaffected Tory voters could be tempted back. Are there any enthusiasts for Rishi’s govt? The people who hated Boris’ Tories still hate them, & the people who liked Boris’ Tories hate Rishi. Lockdown lovers think they were too lax, lockdown haters think they were too draconian. Rishi isn’t more charismatic than Sir Keir, so he’s not going to dazzle in an election campaign, and there’s not really a polarising issue that he can differentiate himself from Labour at the moment.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
And, depending upon the circumstances, some politicians are able to spread their populist arms to encompass more groups.
For example Clinton and Blair in the 1990s were able to govern during times of economic prosperity and geopolitical security allowing them to give a greater than normal amount of people what they wanted.
I think the difference is how you respond when giving people what they want is impossible, or at least has massive predictable downsides.
The Populist (capital P) answer seems to be to give people what they want now, and damn the consequences. Or blame shadowy forces for thwarting the democratic will. And the article does have a working definition of what Populism looks like, and it's rather uncomfortable reading for the UK;
The researchers find that having a populist leader hits a country’s GDP per capita and living standards by about 10% over 15 years as the economy turns inward, institutions are undermined and risks are taken with macroeconomic policy.'
Trump, and Boris to a lesser extent, both illustrate the main problem with being populist leaders - they both attract "yes men" and sycophants, which means you have a pool of people vying for senior positions whose major talent is boot-licking and a*se-kissing. That is what they are good at. What they lack is actual ability and connection to reality.
Which is why populist governments wreck countries and economies.
So I used to think Russell Brand's switch to become an alt-right idiot was a commercial one. But maybe it was because he knew this shit was coming and he calculated the alt-right conspiracy nutjob crowd would be more likely to stick by him?
I just assumed it was because he was an idiot.
But that doesn’t invalidate either of your other hypotheses.
Has anyone on the freethinking alt-right though freely enough to have a "why am I at a party with all the most awful people in London?" epiphany?
That's part of it. There is a grim elegance in the way that a poor economic outlook causes populism to grow, and populist governments tend to turn the economy into a pile of poo, which allows populist leaders to thrive...
All governments are populist the variations are which parts of the populace they target for votes.
Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
It's another irregular verb, isn't it?
I am listening to the people's concerns They are playing to the gallery You are a populist
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Related to the Russell Brand story, there have been some interesting articles on 'the great uncancelling' on Tortoise media. Essentially, they are observing a trend whereby cancelling isn't working, using the example of Johnny Depp in particular - these allegations are not sticking unless someone actually gets sent to jail. See also the fact that Andrew Tate is now back in business, and that the allegations (and court findings) against Trump have don't seem to be harming his political prospects. Elon Musk also made some vaguely supportive comments towards Brand yesterday. We may not be seeing 'progress' in the way that some posters think.
Yet Huw Edwards and Pip still remain out on a limb. Careers over. Neither have done anything illegal. Poor Pip has been thrown to the Wolves by people he used to consider friends.
But these people didn't trade on notoriety to start with, though.
I think the phenomenon is more of uncancellable notoriety. These people get stronger the more loudly they're condemned ; so provoking people is in fact their currency, and actually part of the currency of our times - "owning the libs", "I love liberal tears", "white womens' tears", "pale, male and stale tears": ; pick your self-perpetuating language of provocation from the left or right.
Wasn't there an author of a best-selling book around that same time who in similar vein bragged about his promiscuity, and who also became an Alt-Right maverick?
Some of these men left behind a lot of victims.
It seems to be a common theme across media and the arts.
I am reminded of a Hollywood producer who said that the original Polanski prosecution ruined the party atmosphere in Hollywood.
Yes, he said that. Out loud. To camera….
Roisin Murphy also appears to be doing very well with her new album despite the music industry's combined attemots to slience her (not that Roisin chose controversy - she made a private comment about puberty blockers that 90% of the population would be in total agreement with, which she subsequently (in my view needlessly) apologised for, but that was enough for a mass pile on .)
Although she seems to have been quietly removed from 6music and the BBC sites.
I didn’t realise @OnlyLivingBoy had this natural story-telling talent
Translation: I can't understand that formula even with my IQ of 130.
143.7
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
And to think you've wasted that genius on, checks... travel writing.
I know. To think, I could have been a banker or a politician or a lawyer, instead I am forced to wander the lonely world, looking at things like rivers and stuff
Bonjour!
Where's this ?
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?
Countries don't tend to elect paranoid populist when things are going great. GDP may well drop but you'd need to somehow compare like with like: the countries in a mess that voted non-populist.
Comments
For example, in 1884 Gladstone seemed very likely to win again, and might well have won outright but for the compromise he struck with Salisbury. In 1928 nobody expected the Conservatives to lose to Labour. 1867 is an example of your view I suppose as Disraeli was alarmed if he didn't pass a reform bill that favoured the Conservatives the Liberals would pass one that favoured them. 1969 perhaps as well - Labour were only just emerging from the devaluation debacle of 1967.
Several women have made allegations against Brand as part of the investigation:
One woman alleges that Brand raped her against a wall in his Los Angeles home. She was treated at a rape crisis centre on the same day. The Times says it has seen medical records to support this
A second woman alleges that Brand assaulted her when he was in his early 30s and she was 16 and still at school. She alleges he referred to her as "the child" during an emotionally abusive and controlling relationship
A third woman claims that Brand sexually assaulted her while she worked with him in Los Angeles, and that he threatened to take legal action if she told anyone else about her allegation
The fourth woman alleged being sexually assaulted by Brand and him being physically and emotionally abusive towards her
@rustyrockets
Jun 30, 2014
"Can you tell what it is yet?" Yes Rolf, it's indecent assault.
250 + 2S + SLab seats, where S = Starmer's net satisfaction leads over Sunak is something even I can easily remember.
He always tried to pitch himself as edgy, but always struck me as just nasty. The cult of celebrity is a strong one though, and it seems that giving young men fame and fortune gets a lot of interest from young women. Whether footballer or media star, the lack of internal or external restraint lends itself to sleaziness and sometimes criminality.
I think he’s got a history podcast out or something; I might give it a listen.
Never heard of him, personally. Maybe a relation of Willy Brandt, the German politician ?
EDIT: My lack of radio listening has led me astray.
It is a mistake to treat the electorate as a single unit; every individual voter will vote (or not) the way they wish, some reluctantly, some enthusiastically.
I think the fact that he represented a certain archetype made him an easy shorthand reference point in media as well, which amplified his fame. He was famous for being Russell Brand, primarily, as most of his acting roles he was just being a version of himself.
Oh dear.
Edit ; I'm very wary of British press open seasons, and I'm sure he has some more positive aspects or other as well, but this admittedly doesn't help him much, either. The article looks partly disturbing, and partly part of a typical British press campaign ; there's nothing at intrinsically wrong with a couple of a man aged 30 and a woman aged 20.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/andrew-sachs-daughter-blasts-russell-30958955
But also.
The kindest conclusion from yesterday's reports is that Brand is a cad and a bounder. Even if his actions were within the law, they weren't right. One would have thought that bastions of traditional morality, Fr Calvin say, or Professor Peterson, would have views on that.
Apparently not.
A Lab majority might be missed, but I reckon it'll be very close if it is missed.
However the overall forecast seems right, a narrow Labour majority rather than a landslide, Starmer PM but with more of a Wilson 1964 mandate than Blair 1997 in the end
In a word.
The model predicts a GE right now would lead to 281 E&W Labour seats (so c. 300-310 Lab in total?). How does that square with a 15-20% Lab poll lead?
Does the level of LD support have any impact on the Conservative outcome?
Some thoughts
- i) EQUATION: According to you, L = 176.84 + 2.05*S + 0.36*L(-1), where L=new seats, L(-1)=old seats, S=Relative net leader satisfaction (net satisfaction for Labour leader minus net satisfaction for Conservative leader). I have no idea if it's going to work but by goodness I'm going to remember it. Well done!
- ii) SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS. You say "So neither camp is wholly correct, as the hypotheses that c=0 and c=1 are both comfortably rejected at standard significance levels". Fair enough, but did you forget to include the p-values? Or were you taking the mean and standard error of c of 0.36 (0.09) and worked out that the probability that that dist'n included 0 and 1 was less than 0.05?
- iii) RNLS. RNLS (Relative net leader satisfaction) is defined as (satisfied with Labour leader minus dissatisfaction with Labour leader) minus (satisfied with Conservative leader minus dissatisfaction with Conservative leader). It's a complex indicator. Would a simpler one such as "satisfied with Labour leader" minus "satisfied with Con leader" have done as well?
- iv) N. Was your n=11?
Now go and write another article each month with October's S, November's S, December's S, until the election happens.Populist is used as a term of abuse when the groups being targeted are 'people like them' instead of 'people like us'.
Some of these men left behind a lot of victims.
So I watched last night hoping for a slam dunk, but it didn’t appear to me that there was one really. Most of it was just people calling him out for the obnoxious, unfunny, ungentlemanly behaviour that they looked the other way at, or encouraged, when he was making them money.
A girl I know is his make up artist/PA, it will be interesting to see what she makes of all this.
If rape is alleged there's a due process in this country and that's the courts, not the press.
I suggest you go away and watch the video of Ian Price being eaten alive in Staffordshire two days ago. Seriously. Everyone needs to watch it, to know what we are dealing with. It is extremely disturbing - as bad as an ISIS or Cartel video - and it’s in a garden in Middle England
I won’t link directly to it but it’s now so viral a Twitter search of “ian price video” will get you straight there
Be warned
Once you’ve seen it you will realise there is no choice, these animals are so big, dangerous and aggressive they need to be banned immediately. As @williamglenn said last night, the question isn’t “whether a ban will work” it’s whether the government can afford to wait til the end of the year
Soon enough there will be one of these videos involving a child
The Red Wall was trending more blue for quite some time. The Tory hope will have been having finally taken the plunge people will have settled into a new pattern. Sometimes people take a long time to recognise their politics is now X not Y but are very firm once they do recognise it .
I don't get that sense from the polling though. It appears that many of the most recent 2019 shifters instead feel jolted back to the old party by how bad things have been, and even earlier shifters are not firm.
Redcar itself has been a bit different in elections due to local factors, but across the region I think buyer's remorse is more likely than sustained conversion.
I am reminded of a Hollywood producer who said that the original Polanski prosecution ruined the party atmosphere in Hollywood.
Yes, he said that. Out loud. To camera….
Giving this ****** such exposure upticks his YouTube income. I always thought him a dirty b******. He has made much of his detoxification and how clever he is to have been "clean" for so long. Personally, I would have had more time for him if he hadn't involved himself in a drug-addled, debauched hedonistic lifestyle in the first place.
Russell Brand strikes me as someone wholly worthy of the application of that four letter word that gets an instant ban on PB.
I think Labour will get across the line, but I disagree with the idea that we're in Sunak's honeymoon period. He didn't get a honeymoon!
Anyone who hopes they will move on do not know our media who (being topical) are like a dog with a bone
https://x.com/watn_tarnation/status/1702904681159434600?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Thanks!
On your point ii yes, if you look at the mean and SD of the coefficient estimate on coefficient c you will see that the both 0 and 1 are confidently outside the 95% CI.
Running the regression with relative positive satisfaction rather than relative net satisfaction gives you a worse fit. I think that makes sense. Especially when candidates are unpopular their negatives matter. People voted Tory in 2019 because they actively disliked Corbyn, for instance
Yes N=11unfortunately, we don't have elections very often. You have to work with what you have!
Modern media is able to find niche markets for most things.
A more likely plan is to just bog owners of vaguely large and dangerous dogs down in paperwork, vet fees, mental health assessments, annual training etc fees, so it becomes too burdensome. Then - any problem dog that comes to the authorities attention for whatever reason can be taken away immediately if the correct paperwork isn't in place. Rather than the current situation, where there is nothing they can do unless someone gets hurt.
I'd rather the Times and C4 investigative journos spent their time unearthing corruption and bankrupt local councils. What has happened about all those dodgy PPE contracts btw?
For example Clinton and Blair in the 1990s were able to govern during times of economic prosperity and geopolitical security allowing them to give a greater than normal amount of people what they wanted.
@hwallop
Of all the many shocking things about the Russell Brand story, this detail stands out.
The TV industry knew his behaviour. And enabled it.
(Via
@thetimes
/
@C4Dispatches
)
I met some of these people, who were donors to Wood Green Animal Shelters, when I worked there.
It is rather a lot of maths for first thing on a Sunday. Nonetheless congrats to @OnlyLivingBoy on his debut, it’s good that this site can offer detailed mathematical analysis
2) Fines for not having insurance calibrated at court/polices costs + £5000
3) £1000 reward for information leading to a conviction. Given that reporting people to the police for Facebook rudeness is a thing among the social milieu we are talking of….
A policy that makes money. Sell it as paying for the cost to the NHS of dog attacks.
Lead with a dump to the papers of data on the amount of attacks that require serious medical intervention - I’ve heard report of many, many times fatalities. Lots of life changing injuries.
Owning the libs, looking forward to the liberal tears, love it, screw the system, etc.
He makes an easy target, though and is famous enough to warrant a lot of interest. Shining light on the PPE contract scandal isn't so easy and gets you in trouble with the government.
I agree that this analysis is probably as far as you can push the maths, given the limited data set. Nice.
Its possible he moved from one tip to the other.
There is, of course, equal madness on the left. eg the Trans debate. See here. 1-2 year olds can be “pre verbally trans”. These are serious people discussing this
The Populist (capital P) answer seems to be to give people what they want now, and damn the consequences. Or blame shadowy forces for thwarting the democratic will. And the article does have a working definition of what Populism looks like, and it's rather uncomfortable reading for the UK;
The researchers find that having a populist leader hits a country’s GDP per capita and living standards by about 10% over 15 years as the economy turns inward, institutions are undermined and risks are taken with macroeconomic policy.'
However, I suspect I wouldn't get re-elected.
COVID, journalists and simple maths comes to mind. Murder Tuesday, anyone?
So whilst everyone agrees with the point that the courts are the place for the criminal accusations I'm a little baffled why it's this story that is stirring people up about misplaced media priorities.
He is intelligent but is also utterly self-obsessed and self-centered so we shouldn't be surprised that he thinks he's the victim.
Selfish idiots, not very bright, see themselves as nice people because “I’m a dog person!”
2) Fines for not having insurance calibrated at court/polices costs + £5000
3) £1000 reward for information leading to a Plus there is a deeply ingrained belief in many dog owners that if breeds are banned, their Fido will be banned and shot next week.
Lula was fervently dismissed as a "populist" by publications such as "The Economist", and other self-appointed priests of middlebrow analysis , when he arrived, but he's actually done his country both a lot of social and economic good.
There are other cases, however ;.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=movhJXJZqkw
I hope you are right.
I do agree with your sentiment.
Rishi isn’t more charismatic than Sir Keir, so he’s not going to dazzle in an election campaign, and there’s not really a polarising issue that he can differentiate himself from Labour at the moment.
I say the game is up
Which is why populist governments wreck countries and economies.
I am listening to the people's concerns
They are playing to the gallery
You are a populist
Bonjour!
It isn't the same charming French-Swiss border region that I also passed through this summer by train, is it ?