I'm off for a long weekend in Instanbul (first visit).
Any tips?
Remember you can't go back to Constantinople.
Go on as many trips on ferries as you can, across the Bosphorus, up the golden horn, wherever. It's beautiful from the water. And you can enjoy an inexpensive tea while bobbing along.
I defy anyone to read the report and transcript of Lozzagate and not LOL.
I think the Fox family needs to use some of their vast wealth and get Lozza into a programe... Otherwise I don't think it's going to end well with him...
Doesn't surprise me. Some very good videos and so on. World of Tanks (the video game or whatever it is) also helps, though I'm not sure if there is any formal connexion other than donations and cross-publicity. It's almost impossible to look up anything tankish on the net without having to wade through WoT as well.
A quick check shows that WoT gave £25K recently - and I suppose that counts as social media. It's certainly interactive.
I defy anyone to read the report and transcript of Lozzagate and not LOL.
I think the Fox family needs to use some of their vast wealth and get Lozza into a programe... Otherwise I don't think it's going to end well with him...
I thought the problem was that he *was* on a programme!
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Everything has to be “the worst thing ever” or “the most wonderful invention in history” or “THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD. BRACE”
I prefer my own sober, measured commentary, even if it is suited to a more grown-up, judicious era
Talking of which, our toaster tried to kill us all this morning - refused to stop supplying heat to the bread well after the timer should have finished. We were discussing yesterday replacing it due to erratic performance. Time to face it: AGI, IT'S HERE!!!
Toasters having lids is a sign of tough times. They were first introduced in 2008 during the financial meltdown as wealthy Americans in Los Angeles discovered that down at heel gnomes were creeping into toasters to warm their ears in winter.
I'd just like to have a toaster big enough to fit bread comfortably inside.
Most toasters nowadays seem to be a squeeze to get bread in unless its shaped specifically as 'toaster bread'.
Yes! Even the ones that advertise having extra-large slots (oo-er) just mean that they're wide enough to take muffins and scones, not that they're long or deep enough to take a normal slice of bread.
Butter dishes, too. Finding one that takes a normal block of British butter is ridiculously hard too.
Where do the parties stand on these vital issues?
Clearly banning butter dishes smaller than a normal block of butter should be in the next Tory manifesto.
Now that we are, so to speak, ourselves alone, the improved UK Toaster Slot Size Regulations, alongside the Butter Dish Size Variation Order should be one of the conspicuous benefits of Brexit.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
Sorry, are you actually calling me a Putinist shill here? In the interests of clarity, let me know.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
I see @LostPassword has liked this post. State of it.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
Sorry, are you actually calling me a Putinist shill here? In the interests of clarity, let me know.
Everyone who doesn't want to Nuke the Kremlin is a Putinist shill and a "fucking appeaser". You must have missed the PB memo
I'm off for a long weekend in Instanbul (first visit).
Any tips?
Remember you can't go back to Constantinople.
Go on as many trips on ferries as you can, across the Bosphorus, up the golden horn, wherever. It's beautiful from the water. And you can enjoy an inexpensive tea while bobbing along.
Also don't forget to do the Basilica Cistern when you visit the Blue Mosque - it's virtually next door.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
He opposes any form of military assistance to Ukraine, argues that their former pro-Russian President was ousted by the EU and USA in a “coup” in 2014, alleges that tge expansion of NATO is to blame for Russian actions.
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
I fancy Uruguay to be wider and NZ to be narrower.
Uruguay by more than 10 Samoa by less than 10 or Japan win NZ by more than 30 Fiji by more than 15 Scotland by more than 30 Argentina by more than 20 South Africa by more than 30 Australia by more than 20.
The only one where I differ interestingly from you is Japan.
I should add that I have been bad at this so far this tournament!
All fair comments - I did think a little about the Japan game - they are playing well ..but then again so are Samoa....
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
He was bleating recently (after Gorbachev died?) that the cold war had been good for Britain but the end of it had seen Germany become too powerful much to our detriment. You can read about his father in Christopher's memoir, a naval man who served in the war and spent the rest of his life mourning the decline of the empire.
I think it's all rather sad really.
Also he doesn't simply adopt a Palmerstonian approach but seeks to find a kind of moral equivalence so that his Palmerstonian instinct seems justified. Hence his rather laughable attempts to dignify the Donbass separatists and the Minsk agreement.
It's odd how the Greens have become far left. I remember back in the late 80's and 90's they were a relatively center going party?
To me it's kind of consistent. The big question mark is how compatible the endless growth that capitalism implies is with ecology. We clearly can't keep throwing absolutely everything into the growth furnace.
Doesn't mean I subscribe to the Green view of no growth and I certainly don't recommend abandoning capitalism (yet, though if something better turns up...) but at least the Greens have grasped that nettle and are going for what they think the underlying causes are.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
I fancy Uruguay to be wider and NZ to be narrower.
If neither you nor I are attracted to many of those core values (or if many have nothing to do with the environment) then the party is surely failing on some fundamental level, Sandy.
This is a feature of our FPTP system. The only niche the Green party can really occupy is as a protest party, and because the general, inoffensive "none of the above" protest party niche is already taken by the Lib Dems and the fringe right wing niche is taken by RefUK, the one available spot is the disaffected hard left. Especially so given the other pretenders to that spot like the SWP have always been pretty shit at electoral politics.
There are a few shades of Green political sentiment and they are represented patchily by the parties. The 3 main ones being:
- Watermelon Green, which the party represents and which sees the environment as primarily a question of social justice - Conservation green, an increasingly popular home for NIMBYism which is really about preserving the local environment and countryside and is adjacent to CPRE, and pays only lip service to global issues. More to the taste of local Green Party councillors but also present in parts of the Lib Dems and the other 2. - Corporate green, the centrist environmentalism that takes its cue from Attenborough documentaries, is primarily concerned with climate change, the rainforests and oceans and sees technological solutions to most green issues. Represented to a reasonable degree by all 3 main parties at least until recently.
There's the animal liberation / eco-fascism fringe too but it's a much smaller body of opinion and not really represented by any of the parties.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
This view, while not mine, is fair enough. What would not be right however is to hold it without trumpeting, fairly loudly, that this entails leaving NATO.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
In fairness to Hitchens, he has held the view for years that wars in distant places that do not directly affect the UK are not relevant. With regards to the war in Ukraine, he is correct in thinking that the creep of pro-Nato and pro-EU sentiment right up to the Russian border was a contributory cause to the war. So he does have a point that is consistent with his world-view.
My view differs from his in the respect that you can't really blame Ukrainians et al for choosing to align with the West, and that regardless of cause and blame it is in our interest to assist UKR in their battle. So I understand and quite like him, but do not agree with him.
[Edit: you may also recall my rant that British politics is about assigning blame not achieving a goal. That plays a part here as well]
I think what Russia has done is bloody terrible, Ukraine deserves our military support, and that the goal should be to return the borders to the status quo ante. Yet according to the PB Toy Soldiers I am a Putinist shill, apparently, just because I question their schoolboyish catchphrases like "we must do anything it takes" – which stand up to not an ounce of scrutiny.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
He was bleating recently (after Gorbachev died?) that the cold war had been good for Britain but the end of it had seen Germany become too powerful much to our detriment. You can read about his father in Christopher's memoir, a naval man who served in the war and spent the rest of his life mourning the decline of the empire.
I think it's all rather sad really.
Margaret Thatcher had the same view - she was troubled at the speed of German reunification. Not saying it was right, but it wasn't a wild view.
Doesn't surprise me. Some very good videos and so on. World of Tanks (the video game or whatever it is) also helps, though I'm not sure if there is any formal connexion other than donations and cross-publicity. It's almost impossible to look up anything tankish on the net without having to wade through WoT as well.
A quick check shows that WoT gave £25K recently - and I suppose that counts as social media. It's certainly interactive.
I didn't know it was sponsored by WorldOfTanks. I assume WarThunder is well jell.
I keep meaning to visit but am always too busy. It is one of few things left that still accept cash/postal order/cheque donations. If anybody wants to donate it is here: https://tankmuseum.org/support-us
We've just been watching "Jericho" on ITVX. In one episode, Lozza Fox plays a character who gets murdered by having his face repeatedly battered against a bathroom floor.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.
The comparison would work if the granting of free places by private schools was their main function in life. But it isn't.
..and it hasn't been since 1868 at the latest. People who talk as if they're providing some great benefit to the wider population are being deeply disingenuous.
The contortions gone through on behalf of private schools are quite something.
'It's people who can afford it doing what they think is best for their kids, end of. And it's a free country.'
That's the essence of the argument for and it's a perfectly good one. No need to pretend they are a positive for society as a whole.
If they are genuine charities doing genuine good work, then they are. Objectively.
Oxfam campaign on left wing political issues. They advocate left wing taxes. They also spend a smaller percentage of revenue on good works than many charitable schools do.
I wouldn't target them for their politics though, as they are objectively a charity, just like schools objectively are.
If it's fair game to start picking on charities we dislike, I nominate Oxfam next.
Do you have figures to support this?
Oxfam GB report for 2021/22 says they spend £122m on humanitarian, £105m on development, £69m trading activities (cost of shops, goods sold in shops), £26m fundraising/legacies, £4m campaigning and £3m other.
I'd be surprised if there were private schools that spend ~70% of revenue on charitable activities.
A somewhat strained comparison. Categories are tricky.
Education itself is a charitable activity (unless the rules have changed?).
Drill down in the Oxfam stats and you will find that the actual contribution from trading activities is a fraction of that £69m and much of that is avoided tax, and that much of the "charitable activities" will be wages to UK-based staff, and so on.
Something towards £150m of Oxfam income is Government Grants and similar.
Like Bart, you are making claims but providing no figures, no evidence.
I would also point out that if UK staff are planning, organising, delivering and/or evaluating Oxfam’s humanitarian work, or providing necessary support services to those that are, then their wages are part of Oxfam’s humanitarian mission.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
Sorry, are you actually calling me a Putinist shill here? In the interests of clarity, let me know.
Everyone who doesn't want to Nuke the Kremlin is a Putinist shill and a "fucking appeaser". You must have missed the PB memo
Yes, so it seems. Absolutely moronic stuff from the PB Toy Soldiers. Sadly an accusation levelled almost daily at anyone who indulges in critical thinking rather than spouting empty calls to arms from the comfort of their armchairs
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
He opposes any form of military assistance to Ukraine, argues that their former pro-Russian President was ousted by the EU and USA in a “coup” in 2014, alleges that tge expansion of NATO is to blame for Russian actions.
Those are all pro-Putin talking points.
Citation required, as I said.
Well, you could do your own research. But here you are:
If neither you nor I are attracted to many of those core values (or if many have nothing to do with the environment) then the party is surely failing on some fundamental level, Sandy.
A lefty cake with a little bit of Green icing on the top.
If it started with "The Green Party is an Eco-Authoritarian Party, which aims to safeguard the natural world regardless of the impact on humankind..." then I'd take notice.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
In fairness to Hitchens, he has held the view for years that wars in distant places that do not directly affect the UK are not relevant. With regards to the war in Ukraine, he is correct in thinking that the creep of pro-Nato and pro-EU sentiment right up to the Russian border was a contributory cause to the war. So he does have a point that is consistent with his world-view.
My view differs from his in the respect that you can't really blame Ukrainians et al for choosing to align with the West, and that regardless of cause and blame it is in our interest to assist UKR in their battle. So I understand and quite like him, but do not agree with him.
[Edit: you may also recall my rant that British politics is about assigning blame not achieving a goal. That plays a part here as well]
I think what Russia has done is bloody terrible, Ukraine deserves our military support, and that the goal should be to return the borders to the status quo ante. Yet according to the PB Toy Soldiers I am a Putinist shill, apparently, just because I question their schoolboyish catchphrases like "we must do anything it takes" – which stand up to not an ounce of scrutiny.
I think we can all agree the terms "Putinist Shill" and "Toy Soldier" are equally unhelpful.
As has been discussed before a lot of this comes down to vibes. We can all agree the Russian invasion was wrong, but where we go mentally from there depends a lot on the answer to 3 questions: 1. what are Russia's long term intentions towards its neighbours? 2. what are Russia's intentions towards us? and 3. how credible are Russia's nuclear threats?
The reason people end up in the more hawkish box is usually because they believe 1. Russia will use peace as an opportunity to rearm for future war, and ultimately it wishes to recreate the Soviet empire, 2. Russia sees the UK as a strategic enemy and actively works to damage it, 3. Russia is bluffing on nukes
People who are at the doveish end of the spectrum, right or left, believe a combination of some or all of 1. Russia has reasonable grievances and can be encouraged through diplomacy towards stable peace with its neighbours, 2. Russia is neutral towards the UK and only acts against us in self-defence, 3. Russia really means it on nukes
Sure there are people who really believe in Putin and what he stands for, particularly on the US far right. And there are certainly unreformed cold warriors out there too who love to stick it to the soviets. But most of us are not so caricaturable.
So after some brilliant matches last weekend, things look a bit quieter this weekend:
Wednesday
Uruguay v Namibia –play off for 4th/5th group place – Uruguay by 10
Thursday
Japan v Samoa – This is more interesting with either team still potentially going through to QF – I think Samoa by 10.
Friday
NZ v Italy – NZ will have a point to prove and should beat Italy by 30
Saturday
Fiji v Georgia – This will be a bone crunching game but with Fiji flair cutting through the Georgia defence, to confirm their second place in the group. Fiji by 15
Scotland v Romania – An easy win for Scotland by 30
Argentina v Chile – An easy win for Argentina by 20+
Sunday
South Africa v Tonga – Another one sided game – SA by 30
Australia v Portugal – While this should normally be a straightforward win by Australia – this is Australia’s last game before they head for the airport and I wonder how committed they will be - could Eddie Jones have lost his squad so completely they let Portugal pinch this??? Australia should win by 20 but on the other hand it might be worth a small flutter……the entertainment value of the post match press conference from Eddie Jones would be pure box office!!
I fancy Uruguay to be wider and NZ to be narrower.
Uruguay by more than 10 Samoa by less than 10 or Japan win NZ by more than 30 Fiji by more than 15 Scotland by more than 30 Argentina by more than 20 South Africa by more than 30 Australia by more than 20.
The only one where I differ interestingly from you is Japan.
I should add that I have been bad at this so far this tournament!
My only flub this tournament was thinking Australia would beat Wales. I was far too focused on how bad Wales have been recently and not focused enough on Australia's woes.
Me too. It's hard to really believe Australia can be that bad at rugby.
This must be the first RWC in which all southern hemisphere teams have lost to northern hemisphere teams.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
A bit better than their post 2014 policy most would argue.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
Interesting that you don't see Russia invading a friendly nation, causing the current cost of living crisis, as against our interests either.
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
A bit like cutting taxes on the better off to promote growth , then?
Seemed to go alright in 1986. The problem then definitely wasn't too little growth.
This is where ideology is surely unhelpful. 20th and 21st century history should teach us that policies that are right in one context are not right in others, and that the merits of cutting or raising things (tax, spending, regulation) depend on your starting point.
It also depends on your demographics: the larger the working age population vis a vis the dependent population, the less tax you need to collect from the former to support the latter.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
I am not an expert in the Cold War at all - I'm sure there were other incidents.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
I am not an expert in the Cold War at all - I'm sure there were other incidents.
And their invasion of a friendly nation, seeking to annex land in a war of aggression, destabilising markets and causing the current cost of living crisis?
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
A bit like cutting taxes on the better off to promote growth , then?
Seemed to go alright in 1986. The problem then definitely wasn't too little growth.
The problem is that those who advocate cutting taxes in recent decades haven't cut them where real tax rates are the highest - which is not for the extremely wealthy.
The Laffer Curve is very, very real and there's a lot of evidence for it - but there's both a left and a right hand slope to it to be fair. The biggest problem in this country is not that some people (the very wealthy) pay a 45p tax band, the biggest problem in this country is that our real tax rates for many, many people can be 75-80%. Which includes both low and middle earners.
Want to address high tax rates? That's where to start.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
All stuff that should be of no concern to the Green Party. Nowt to do with environmentalism.
The Green Party. Doesn't do what is says on the tin.
The argument goes thus, I think. Capitalism is incompatible with protecting the environment. Ergo if you're serious about the environment you must be anti-capitalist. Which as regards political parties here means the Greens.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
I am not an expert in the Cold War at all - I'm sure there were other incidents.
And their invasion of a friendly nation, seeking to annex land in a war of aggression, destabilising markets and causing the current cost of living crisis?
You don't find that at all against our interests?
Very much so, but it must be noted that the COL implications (fuel costs) on the UK are a lot to do with our sanctions rather than Russia's actions.
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
A bit like cutting taxes on the better off to promote growth , then?
Seemed to go alright in 1986. The problem then definitely wasn't too little growth.
This is where ideology is surely unhelpful. 20th and 21st century history should teach us that policies that are right in one context are not right in others, and that the merits of cutting or raising things (tax, spending, regulation) depend on your starting point.
It also depends on your demographics: the larger the working age population vis a vis the dependent population, the less tax you need to collect from the former to support the latter.
Oh, certainly. I was just disputing the 'it's failed every single time it's been tried' angle with the first example which came to mind.
Tax cuts can be self-funding if - rather than 'just' leaving more money in people's pockets - they encourage more work to be done, such that ultimately more tax is paid. There's not many tax cuts which do that, but I'd say the abolition (or at least raising) of the higher income tax threshold would. There's also all sorts of cliff edges which encourage high paid people with a fair amount of discretion in how much they work/earn to limbo desperately under the threshold. Doesn't always work. But definitely does sometimes.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
Manning was frequently hilarious (and filthy). He enjoyed immense success - but away from television.
All stuff that should be of no concern to the Green Party. Nowt to do with environmentalism.
The Green Party. Doesn't do what is says on the tin.
The argument goes thus, I think. Capitalism is incompatible with protecting the environment. Ergo if you're serious about the environment you must be anti-capitalist. Which as regards political parties here means the Greens.
For the Greens, halting economic growth is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
A bit like cutting taxes on the better off to promote growth , then?
Seemed to go alright in 1986. The problem then definitely wasn't too little growth.
This is where ideology is surely unhelpful. 20th and 21st century history should teach us that policies that are right in one context are not right in others, and that the merits of cutting or raising things (tax, spending, regulation) depend on your starting point.
It also depends on your demographics: the larger the working age population vis a vis the dependent population, the less tax you need to collect from the former to support the latter.
Oh, certainly. I was just disputing the 'it's failed every single time it's been tried' angle with the first example which came to mind.
Tax cuts can be self-funding if - rather than 'just' leaving more money in people's pockets - they encourage more work to be done, such that ultimately more tax is paid. There's not many tax cuts which do that, but I'd say the abolition (or at least raising) of the higher income tax threshold would. There's also all sorts of cliff edges which encourage high paid people with a fair amount of discretion in how much they work/earn to limbo desperately under the threshold. Doesn't always work. But definitely does sometimes.
In order of priority, for domestic personal taxation (ignoring the corporate side of things) I would say:
1. Deal with the mad marginal rates and cliff edges 2. Restructure the bandings - they are completely random, as bad as SDLT 3. Align income tax and NI so that all ages pays the same
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
A bit better than their post 2014 policy most would argue.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
Manning was frequently hilarious (and filthy). He enjoyed immense success - but away from television.
Yes, I suspect it was 'because he didn't want to, and didn't need to'.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
In fairness to Hitchens, he has held the view for years that wars in distant places that do not directly affect the UK are not relevant. With regards to the war in Ukraine, he is correct in thinking that the creep of pro-Nato and pro-EU sentiment right up to the Russian border was a contributory cause to the war. So he does have a point that is consistent with his world-view.
My view differs from his in the respect that you can't really blame Ukrainians et al for choosing to align with the West, and that regardless of cause and blame it is in our interest to assist UKR in their battle. So I understand and quite like him, but do not agree with him.
[Edit: you may also recall my rant that British politics is about assigning blame not achieving a goal. That plays a part here as well]
I think what Russia has done is bloody terrible, Ukraine deserves our military support, and that the goal should be to return the borders to the status quo ante. Yet according to the PB Toy Soldiers I am a Putinist shill, apparently, just because I question their schoolboyish catchphrases like "we must do anything it takes" – which stand up to not an ounce of scrutiny.
That's mainly Bart, though, isn't it, talking like that? And you know what he's like. Never knowingly undertrolls.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
I am not an expert in the Cold War at all - I'm sure there were other incidents.
You're not even an expert on BP - or you might have recalled Russia expropriating most of their assets over there. You clearly don't value international agreements, national boundaries, or rule of law very much, either.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
A bit better than their post 2014 policy most would argue.
After years of trying to be like Belarus or Armenia, Russia invaded. So they tried to be like Finland. And Russia invaded. Seems to me that Russia is forcing them ever-further into the arms of the West.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
Coincidentally I have just read Pete Brown’s Clubland book. It covers Manning quite well. Brown initially felt that Manning’s racism was cynical. It was a lucrative niche that he could have all to himself and he “leaned into it” - But conversations with comedian’s on that circuit led him to conclude that “Manning was a virulent, hateful racist, as well as a brilliantly gifted comedian.” The book also reckons that clubland suffered as his humour was seen as representative as clubland comedians - it was not.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
A bit better than their post 2014 policy most would argue.
I wonder that this chart would look like as a % of their original territory?
Doesn't surprise me. Some very good videos and so on. World of Tanks (the video game or whatever it is) also helps, though I'm not sure if there is any formal connexion other than donations and cross-publicity. It's almost impossible to look up anything tankish on the net without having to wade through WoT as well.
A quick check shows that WoT gave £25K recently - and I suppose that counts as social media. It's certainly interactive.
I didn't know it was sponsored by WorldOfTanks. I assume WarThunder is well jell.
I keep meaning to visit but am always too busy. It is one of few things left that still accept cash/postal order/cheque donations. If anybody wants to donate it is here: https://tankmuseum.org/support-us
At the moment they have a special exhibition, on tanks in popular culture, if that appeals (or not!). I haven't seen it, though.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
I am not an expert in the Cold War at all - I'm sure there were other incidents.
And their invasion of a friendly nation, seeking to annex land in a war of aggression, destabilising markets and causing the current cost of living crisis?
You don't find that at all against our interests?
Very much so, but it must be noted that the COL implications (fuel costs) on the UK are a lot to do with our sanctions rather than Russia's actions.
Unless you link our sanctions in any way to Russia's actions, of course.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
A bit better than their post 2014 policy most would argue.
After years of trying to be like Belarus or Armenia, Russia invaded. So they tried to be like Finland. And Russia invaded. Seems to me that Russia is forcing them ever-further into the arms of the West.
The behaviour of Russia toward their “Near Abroad” reminds me of wife beaters who complain their wives left them for other men.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
I see @LostPassword has liked this post. State of it.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
Putinist shill doesn't understand why Putinist shill is Putinist shill.
Saying that Russia should not be able to gain land by illegal aggression does not make you a "toy soldier". Saying that every bit of Ukrainian land should be liberated and we should support Ukraine in their desire to enable that does not make you a toy soldier.
Opposing giving that support to Ukraine, wanting Putin's war of aggression to succeed, does make you a Putinist shill.
I see @LostPassword has liked this post. State of it.
What of it?
If you will go around implicitly deriding me as a "PB toy soldier" I'm going to like posts from people who put the contrary position.
I've got some fun new wizard models from Northstar miniatures by the way.
All stuff that should be of no concern to the Green Party. Nowt to do with environmentalism.
The Green Party. Doesn't do what is says on the tin.
The argument goes thus, I think. Capitalism is incompatible with protecting the environment. Ergo if you're serious about the environment you must be anti-capitalist. Which as regards political parties here means the Greens.
For the Greens, halting economic growth is a good thing, not a bad thing.
They dispute the idea that ever increasing gdp is the best or only way forward. I'm not a Green but I think they're probably right on a few things.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
Why should someone adapt to the changing values of society if they don't agree with those changes?
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response must match. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
That's the policy that was followed by Ukraine before 2014, of course... but I'm not sure that it worked out too well for them.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
A bit better than their post 2014 policy most would argue.
I wonder that this chart would look like as a % of their original territory?
35% and 1% respectively, to answer my own question! The things the Lib Dems could do with this bar chart...
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
And not trying it is failing here.
The trouble is not the policy itself, it's that the problem is not unscrupulous landlords profiteering. It's too much demand and not enough supply.
Build more homes (of whatever size, so long as they are in the right areas where the demand is) and the issue rent control is trying to fix goes away.
Yes, needing to consider Rent Controls means it's gone wrong. For me the biggest piece we're missing is a good supply of public sector rental properties. Homes that provide security of tenure and decent accommodation at an affordable cost to people who can't or don't want to buy.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
I think Peter Hitchens believes in an independent foreign policy - one that regards Russia and America (as two examples) as both foreign nations to be viewed on a par with each other all things being equal. This is also my view. Of course if one of those nations does something terrible, especially to threaten the UK, the response changes. It's a Palmerstonian perspective. This tends to anger a lot of people.
Nothing wrong with saying all other things being equal we should treat them on a par.
All other things haven't been equal for centuries though.
If you think Putin engaging in bloody wars of conquest in Europe seeking to annex land aggressively is equivalent to America, while his soldiers engage in systematic abuses and rape that is tolerated or encouraged, then yes that will anger a lot of people. Quite rightly.
Regarding the relative merits of Russia vs. America in advancing British interests, it's always difficult to compare the actions of allies with those of belligerents, but there's really not much on the Russian charge sheet for the UK imo in those centuries you speak of. The Crimean War, but was that not us? Inflitration of British intelligence in the Cold War. The US on the other hand, dealt a blow to UK interests in the Suez crisis, invaded Grenada without prior notice, forced us to concede to Iceland in the Cod Wars, resulting in thousands of British job losses, maliciously gutted BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and those are just off the top of my head.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Not much on the Russian charge sheet? 🤔
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
I am not an expert in the Cold War at all - I'm sure there were other incidents.
And their invasion of a friendly nation, seeking to annex land in a war of aggression, destabilising markets and causing the current cost of living crisis?
You don't find that at all against our interests?
Very much so, but it must be noted that the COL implications (fuel costs) on the UK are a lot to do with our sanctions rather than Russia's actions.
Unless you link our sanctions in any way to Russia's actions, of course.
Of course they're linked, but the accusation was that Russian actions caused the col crisis. That's not true - look at India, which has been actively benefitting from cut-price fuel from Russia. Our actions may be justifiable morally, but they are our actions nonetheless.
Fox on Twitter has shared pre-show discussion in which he laid out he was going to say what he said! The show were pre-warned!
Oh, so the station knew what he was going to say? If the subject of the discussion complains to OFCOM about it being unnecessarily personal, the producers and licence-holder could be in trouble.
It’s one thing to have a guest go off the rails on a live show, it’s something else to have cleared his rather personal rant in advance.
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
A bit like cutting taxes on the better off to promote growth , then?
Seemed to go alright in 1986. The problem then definitely wasn't too little growth.
The problem is that those who advocate cutting taxes in recent decades haven't cut them where real tax rates are the highest - which is not for the extremely wealthy.
The Laffer Curve is very, very real and there's a lot of evidence for it - but there's both a left and a right hand slope to it to be fair. The biggest problem in this country is not that some people (the very wealthy) pay a 45p tax band, the biggest problem in this country is that our real tax rates for many, many people can be 75-80%. Which includes both low and middle earners.
Want to address high tax rates? That's where to start.
I agree with your assessment of the problem. My focus on the 45% tax bracket is that it appears to me to be peculiarly self-defeating. It looks to me like you would raise more tax simply by abolishing it, and that it is there purely for symbolic reasons. I do agree that high effective tax rates for low and middle earners are more of a problem - but also a harder one to solve without ending up with a lower tax take. Doesn't mean it can't be done, though.
i just received, via email. a veritable list of friends and extended family members who are variously demented, dying, terminally ill, addicted to heroin/booze/tranq/cakes, suicdially depressed, joining a nunnery, in a right old pickle for unspecified reasons
i just received, via email. a veritable list of friends and extended family members who are variously demented, dying, terminally ill, addicted to heroin/booze/tranq/cakes, suicdially depressed, joining a nunnery, in a right old pickle for unspecified reasons
i just received, via email. a veritable list of friends and extended family members who are variously demented, dying, terminally ill, addicted to heroin/booze/tranq/cakes, suicdially depressed, joining a nunnery, in a right old pickle for unspecified reasons
Fuck me. Life is short. Enjoy it
Is there a factor they all have in common?
My brother in law - years younger than me - has just been diagnosed with leukemia. Out of nowhere
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
Why should someone adapt to the changing values of society if they don't agree with those changes?
Because they are a service provider. If you don't adapt, you don't sell the product. That's the same for an entertainer as anyone else.
That doesn't mean Manning himself needed to change his personal view. Indeed, he didn't have to adapt his act and didn't in fact do so. But it means he wasn't going to be able to sell his product and (whilst he continued to get a living on the club circuit) that's what happened. I'm not bothered about it - his choice. But it was a bit self-destructive, and it's worth wondering why he made the choices he did.
Us Greens are always right about everything in the end.
Rent control is a populist policy for morons
“It’s failed every single time it’s been tried. In numerous countries.”
“This time it will be different”
A bit like cutting taxes on the better off to promote growth , then?
Seemed to go alright in 1986. The problem then definitely wasn't too little growth.
The problem is that those who advocate cutting taxes in recent decades haven't cut them where real tax rates are the highest - which is not for the extremely wealthy.
The Laffer Curve is very, very real and there's a lot of evidence for it - but there's both a left and a right hand slope to it to be fair. The biggest problem in this country is not that some people (the very wealthy) pay a 45p tax band, the biggest problem in this country is that our real tax rates for many, many people can be 75-80%. Which includes both low and middle earners.
Want to address high tax rates? That's where to start.
I agree with your assessment of the problem. My focus on the 45% tax bracket is that it appears to me to be peculiarly self-defeating. It looks to me like you would raise more tax simply by abolishing it, and that it is there purely for symbolic reasons. I do agree that high effective tax rates for low and middle earners are more of a problem - but also a harder one to solve without ending up with a lower tax take. Doesn't mean it can't be done, though.
You get rid of all the silly withdrawals, reinstate child benefit and personal allowances, merge IT and Employee NI, lower the benefit withdrawal rate, put 45% band up to £250k.
If you’re short, then raise council tax to compensate.
There’s way too many undesirable behaviours thanks to the way income tax works, fix that first, then look elsewhere for revenue.
Citation required that Peter Hitchens is ‘pro-Putin’. I’m not a fan of many of his views, but it sounds like a gross misrepresentation to me. Isn’t it that he just favours some form of reconciliation rather than being ‘pro’ Putin?
It smacks of the same mentality that we see from the PB Toy Soldiers on here - either you favour all out bloody war until Russia is wholly defeated or you are a Putinite shill.
In fairness to Hitchens, he has held the view for years that wars in distant places that do not directly affect the UK are not relevant. With regards to the war in Ukraine, he is correct in thinking that the creep of pro-Nato and pro-EU sentiment right up to the Russian border was a contributory cause to the war. So he does have a point that is consistent with his world-view.
My view differs from his in the respect that you can't really blame Ukrainians et al for choosing to align with the West, and that regardless of cause and blame it is in our interest to assist UKR in their battle. So I understand and quite like him, but do not agree with him.
[Edit: you may also recall my rant that British politics is about assigning blame not achieving a goal. That plays a part here as well]
I think what Russia has done is bloody terrible, Ukraine deserves our military support, and that the goal should be to return the borders to the status quo ante. Yet according to the PB Toy Soldiers I am a Putinist shill, apparently, just because I question their schoolboyish catchphrases like "we must do anything it takes" – which stand up to not an ounce of scrutiny.
I think we can all agree the terms "Putinist Shill" and "Toy Soldier" are equally unhelpful.
As has been discussed before a lot of this comes down to vibes. We can all agree the Russian invasion was wrong, but where we go mentally from there depends a lot on the answer to 3 questions: 1. what are Russia's long term intentions towards its neighbours? 2. what are Russia's intentions towards us? and 3. how credible are Russia's nuclear threats?
The reason people end up in the more hawkish box is usually because they believe 1. Russia will use peace as an opportunity to rearm for future war, and ultimately it wishes to recreate the Soviet empire, 2. Russia sees the UK as a strategic enemy and actively works to damage it, 3. Russia is bluffing on nukes
People who are at the doveish end of the spectrum, right or left, believe a combination of some or all of 1. Russia has reasonable grievances and can be encouraged through diplomacy towards stable peace with its neighbours, 2. Russia is neutral towards the UK and only acts against us in self-defence, 3. Russia really means it on nukes
Sure there are people who really believe in Putin and what he stands for, particularly on the US far right. And there are certainly unreformed cold warriors out there too who love to stick it to the soviets. But most of us are not so caricaturable.
That's a nice analysis. (3) is a somewhat separate issue.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe the dove-ish view on (1). Putin and others have explicitly said that the wish to recreate the Soviet/Russian empire.
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
It worked and he was wise enough to know that stuff that was used on TV could rarely be used again whilst a routine kept solely in on a tour could be used again week after week..
i just received, via email. a veritable list of friends and extended family members who are variously demented, dying, terminally ill, addicted to heroin/booze/tranq/cakes, suicdially depressed, joining a nunnery, in a right old pickle for unspecified reasons
After hearing about the scythe of Death sweeping through virtually everyone I know, I've had enough
Frankly, it's time for me to stop worrying about everyone else, and finally focus on ME. Get some ME time. Belatedly do some travel. Have some fun. Maybe go to Bangkok for a week, I dunno
What's the point in me slaving away for minutes a week, at this stage in life?? When I could snap off like a frozen parsnip at any moment? I should be out there, enjoying myself - I just I hope I haven't left it too late
After hearing about the scythe of Death sweeping through virtually everyone I know, I've had enough
Frankly, it's time for me to stop worrying about everyone else, and finally focus on ME. Get some ME time. Belatedly do some travel. Have some fun. Maybe go to Bangkok for a week, I dunno
What's the point in me slaving away for minutes a week, at this stage in life?? When I could snap off like a frozen parsnip at any moment? I should be out there, enjoying myself - I just I hope I haven't left it too late
After hearing about the scythe of Death sweeping through virtually everyone I know, I've had enough
Frankly, it's time for me to stop worrying about everyone else, and finally focus on ME. Get some ME time. Belatedly do some travel. Have some fun. Maybe go to Bangkok for a week, I dunno
What's the point in me slaving away for minutes a week, at this stage in life?? When I could snap off like a frozen parsnip at any moment? I should be out there, enjoying myself - I just I hope I haven't left it too late
Haven't you spent most of this year traveling?
I've barely been outside the Northern Hemisphere, what are you talking about?
I watched the Laurence Fox/GB News clip last night. Expecting to see the most outrageous behaviour ever to disgrace our TV screens (judging by the creations)
It was unpleasant and quite offensive. Without question. But I fail to see the reason for the hysteria
Because you're a complete idiot?
It was a man acting like an oaf. Probably drunk? I can see why people have been offended - as I say
But from the reaction here and elsewhere I presumed he had - at least - got his c*ock out and said “suck on that, bitches”
Trust you to think nothing to see here.
What's in question is the position of the broadcaster, and the terms of their OFCOM licence.
I mean, I literally say "it's unpleasant, it's offensive, he acts like a drunken oaf, I can see why people are offended" - but to you that = "nothing to see here"?
Forgive me for not hopping on the Outrage Omnibus to the Theydon-Bois-of-This-is-The-Worst
Yes it crossed the line, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s the same with comedians who push the boundaries. The woman under discussion had made some dismissive remarks about men and mental health, on a different programme earlier in the day.
Penny for the thoughts of the GBN producer, who must have been yelling in the presenter’s ear to cut this one short.
Mr Fox won’t be invited onto live TV for a while, that’s for sure.
You think? Is this not the sort of publicity that GBN deliberately courts?
As far as I can see they'll be looking at a fine rather than the potential loss of their broadcasting licence. Will they care? They're not in this to make a profit.
The art of shock jockery is to get as close to the line as you can, without crossing it. In GBN's case, that means continuing to sound like a serious news outlet, just reporting the news that others don't.
The trouble is that, if you cross the line, the "serious news outlet" thing falls apart pretty quickly, and you just have angry people saying offensive stuff on the telly. Which isn't the point at all.
Editors, journalists and presenters who can walk that line (say Kelvin McKenzie's Sun) are blooming good at what they do, even if you wish they didn't.
I think that angry people saying offensive stuff on telly is exactly the model. The purpose is noise and distraction, dirtying the political arena to crowd out reasoned debate, and enraging and radicalising people. It's the Fox News template and it works - hence Trump. It's not meant to be a slightly right of centre BBC.
Also, she was pretty offensive about male suicide - smirking like it was all a big joke
Is there a link to her comments?
In either case, Lozza is a complete idiot for going for abuse of the person rather than demolition of the argument.
Bernard Manning would be embarrassed.
I always wonder to a degree what Manning's motivation was for not adapting his act to the changing values of society around him.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
It worked and he was wise enough to know that stuff that was used on TV could rarely be used again whilst a routine kept solely in on a tour could be used again week after week..
Comedy still works like that.
Spend a year writing and refining an hour in clubs, spend a year touring the hour in theatres and festivals, or as headline act in clubs, then release the DVD of the show record the special and sell it to Netflix. Then start again, writing new bits.
“Live at the Apollo” pays comics around £20k for 12 minutes, purely because that material is dead once it’s been on mainstream TV.
Some of the old comics like Seinfeld used to avoid releasing the special, and tour basically the same material for a decade or two! There was no point ever seeing him twice.
Comments
World of Tanks (the video game or whatever it is) also helps, though I'm not sure if there is any formal connexion other than donations and cross-publicity. It's almost impossible to look up anything tankish on the net without having to wade through WoT as well.
A quick check shows that WoT gave £25K recently - and I suppose that counts as social media. It's certainly interactive.
Regarding rape, I think facts are important. I don't know what the latest rape allegations are, as I genuinely don't follow news on the conflict at all except via PB threads, but I know that the vast majority of the allegations made by the then Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Lyudmyla Denisova, were fabrications - a situation that she was later dismissed for. I am sure that many Russian soldiers have done atrocious things though, and of course, they shouldn't be occupying a sovereign nation in the first place.
Now that we are, so to speak, ourselves alone, the improved UK Toaster Slot Size Regulations, alongside the Butter Dish Size Variation Order should be one of the conspicuous benefits of Brexit.
Bart, your claim does not appear to stand up.
I think it's all rather sad really.
Also he doesn't simply adopt a Palmerstonian approach but seeks to find a kind of moral equivalence so that his Palmerstonian instinct seems justified. Hence his rather laughable attempts to dignify the Donbass separatists and the Minsk agreement.
Doesn't mean I subscribe to the Green view of no growth and I certainly don't recommend abandoning capitalism (yet, though if something better turns up...) but at least the Greens have grasped that nettle and are going for what they think the underlying causes are.
There are a few shades of Green political sentiment and they are represented patchily by the parties. The 3 main ones being:
- Watermelon Green, which the party represents and which sees the environment as primarily a question of social justice
- Conservation green, an increasingly popular home for NIMBYism which is really about preserving the local environment and countryside and is adjacent to CPRE, and pays only lip service to global issues. More to the taste of local Green Party councillors but also present in parts of the Lib Dems and the other 2.
- Corporate green, the centrist environmentalism that takes its cue from Attenborough documentaries, is primarily concerned with climate change, the rainforests and oceans and sees technological solutions to most green issues. Represented to a reasonable degree by all 3 main parties at least until recently.
There's the animal liberation / eco-fascism fringe too but it's a much smaller body of opinion and not really represented by any of the parties.
I keep meaning to visit but am always too busy. It is one of few things left that still accept cash/postal order/cheque donations. If anybody wants to donate it is here: https://tankmuseum.org/support-us
Some readers may find this therapeutic.
I would also point out that if UK staff are planning, organising, delivering and/or evaluating Oxfam’s humanitarian work, or providing necessary support services to those that are, then their wages are part of Oxfam’s humanitarian mission.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10540829/PETER-HITCHENS-blame-arrogant-foolish-West-Ukraine-crisis.html
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2023/08/washington-putsch-bad-kiev-putsch-good-the-mad-logic-of-animal-farm-takes-over-the-world-.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef02c1b25c196e200d
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2022/09/a-plea-for-civilised-debate-rather-than-mccarthyite-intolerance-on-the-ukraine-issue.html
If it started with "The Green Party is an Eco-Authoritarian Party, which aims to safeguard the natural world regardless of the impact on humankind..." then I'd take notice.
Are there any other recent European examples? Azerbaijan, I suppose. The Faroes?
As has been discussed before a lot of this comes down to vibes. We can all agree the Russian invasion was wrong, but where we go mentally from there depends a lot on the answer to 3 questions: 1. what are Russia's long term intentions towards its neighbours? 2. what are Russia's intentions towards us? and 3. how credible are Russia's nuclear threats?
The reason people end up in the more hawkish box is usually because they believe 1. Russia will use peace as an opportunity to rearm for future war, and ultimately it wishes to recreate the Soviet empire, 2. Russia sees the UK as a strategic enemy and actively works to damage it, 3. Russia is bluffing on nukes
People who are at the doveish end of the spectrum, right or left, believe a combination of some or all of 1. Russia has reasonable grievances and can be encouraged through diplomacy towards stable peace with its neighbours, 2. Russia is neutral towards the UK and only acts against us in self-defence, 3. Russia really means it on nukes
Sure there are people who really believe in Putin and what he stands for, particularly on the US far right. And there are certainly unreformed cold warriors out there too who love to stick it to the soviets. But most of us are not so caricaturable.
This must be the first RWC in which all southern hemisphere teams have lost to northern hemisphere teams.
I guess you missed one of their pilots deliberately firing at an RAF plane recently? Remind me when the Americans last did that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
Interesting that you don't see Russia invading a friendly nation, causing the current cost of living crisis, as against our interests either.
The whole Cold War, you think the only thing the Soviets did against us was infiltrate intelligence?
Fascinating.
It also depends on your demographics: the larger the working age population vis a vis the dependent population, the less tax you need to collect from the former to support the latter.
You don't find that at all against our interests?
https://nitter.net/RussInCheshire/status/1583169656751550464#m
The Laffer Curve is very, very real and there's a lot of evidence for it - but there's both a left and a right hand slope to it to be fair. The biggest problem in this country is not that some people (the very wealthy) pay a 45p tax band, the biggest problem in this country is that our real tax rates for many, many people can be 75-80%. Which includes both low and middle earners.
Want to address high tax rates? That's where to start.
I'm not sure whether he was, at heart, a controversialist troll like Fox, whether he didn't understand attitudes had changed, or whether he lacked the confidence to change to meet the demands of TV. I suspect it was the third of these - it was quite comfortable for him to blame the suits for lack of mainstream success rather than risking compromising with them and publicly falling on his arse having done so.
It's a shame as he was the absolute master of comic timing - there were few, if any, better. But the content...
Build more homes (of whatever size, so long as they are in the right areas where the demand is) and the issue rent control is trying to fix goes away.
Tax cuts can be self-funding if - rather than 'just' leaving more money in people's pockets - they encourage more work to be done, such that ultimately more tax is paid.
There's not many tax cuts which do that, but I'd say the abolition (or at least raising) of the higher income tax threshold would. There's also all sorts of cliff edges which encourage high paid people with a fair amount of discretion in how much they work/earn to limbo desperately under the threshold.
Doesn't always work. But definitely does sometimes.
This has been observed in every place rent control has been tried.
It’s as reliable as creating inflation by printing money. Or lung cancer and cigarettes.
Is it a coincidence that he's chosen two women from ethnic minorities to represent the xenophobic English nationalists?
Is that really the best defence people can think of for xenophobic English nationalism within the Tory party?
1. Deal with the mad marginal rates and cliff edges
2. Restructure the bandings - they are completely random, as bad as SDLT
3. Align income tax and NI so that all ages pays the same
You clearly don't value international agreements, national boundaries, or rule of law very much, either.
Coincidentally I have just read Pete Brown’s Clubland book. It covers Manning quite well. Brown initially felt that Manning’s racism was cynical. It was a lucrative niche that he could have all to himself and he “leaned into it” - But conversations with comedian’s on that circuit led him to conclude that “Manning was a virulent, hateful racist, as well as a brilliantly gifted comedian.” The book also reckons that clubland suffered as his humour was seen as representative as clubland comedians - it was not.
https://tankmuseum.org/what-to-see-and-do/exhibitions
You might argue that Vivek Ramaswamy is a member of the equivalent US group.
Note Trump has already said he'll appeal the judgment on the first count.
Kise cautiously asks:
"Don't take this the wrong way: What in the court's mind does this trial look like?"
Justice Engoron already found Trump liable for fraud on the first count—and granted relief.
"What's the point of the other six [causes of action]?" he asks.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1707037246849761348
If you will go around implicitly deriding me as a "PB toy soldier" I'm going to like posts from people who put the contrary position.
I've got some fun new wizard models from Northstar miniatures by the way.
It’s one thing to have a guest go off the rails on a live show, it’s something else to have cleared his rather personal rant in advance.
My focus on the 45% tax bracket is that it appears to me to be peculiarly self-defeating. It looks to me like you would raise more tax simply by abolishing it, and that it is there purely for symbolic reasons.
I do agree that high effective tax rates for low and middle earners are more of a problem - but also a harder one to solve without ending up with a lower tax take.
Doesn't mean it can't be done, though.
Fuck me. Life is short. Enjoy it
Like, WTF
That doesn't mean Manning himself needed to change his personal view. Indeed, he didn't have to adapt his act and didn't in fact do so. But it means he wasn't going to be able to sell his product and (whilst he continued to get a living on the club circuit) that's what happened. I'm not bothered about it - his choice. But it was a bit self-destructive, and it's worth wondering why he made the choices he did.
If you’re short, then raise council tax to compensate.
There’s way too many undesirable behaviours thanks to the way income tax works, fix that first, then look elsewhere for revenue.
I find it hard to understand why anyone would believe the dove-ish view on (1). Putin and others have explicitly said that the wish to recreate the Soviet/Russian empire.
After hearing about the scythe of Death sweeping through virtually everyone I know, I've had enough
Frankly, it's time for me to stop worrying about everyone else, and finally focus on ME. Get some ME time. Belatedly do some travel. Have some fun. Maybe go to Bangkok for a week, I dunno
What's the point in me slaving away for minutes a week, at this stage in life?? When I could snap off like a frozen parsnip at any moment? I should be out there, enjoying myself - I just I hope I haven't left it too late
Spend a year writing and refining an hour in clubs, spend a year touring the hour in theatres and festivals, or as headline act in clubs, then release the DVD of the show record the special and sell it to Netflix. Then start again, writing new bits.
“Live at the Apollo” pays comics around £20k for 12 minutes, purely because that material is dead once it’s been on mainstream TV.
Some of the old comics like Seinfeld used to avoid releasing the special, and tour basically the same material for a decade or two! There was no point ever seeing him twice.