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.
Erdoğan has said explicitly that he wants to recreate the Ottoman Empire. He has also occupied parts of Cyprus (and more recently Syria) illegally, significantly curtailed democracy within Turkey, and funded armed groups who actively menace the West. But we don't hear a peep out of anyone about it because (until he changes his mind again) he's apparently *our* shitbag. See also Saudi Arabia.
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.
Furthermore they've been quite open about trying to break up the West's ability to work together.
It's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that Putin wants the EU broken up, wants Scottish and Catalan independence, wants streams of refugees heading to Europe, wants people in Europe to despise refugees, wants people to lose faith in the democratic process, wants us all to believe that journalists always have an agenda, that the system is rigged, that they're coming for your car or your garden or to make you live in a "15 minute city" prison, and so on.
Putin (much more so than Russia per se) is your enemy. All of you.
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
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.
Agree - not an easy comparison.
I would say that where education is being provided below cost to beneficiaries it is charitable. Where beneficiaries are paying full cost that is just service provision.
I think you're misreading the figures? They spent £68m on trading, they got an income of £90.3m from trading sales. So if you want to focus on the shops bit, they are generating £20+m for use on their humanitarian/development projects.
Your private school also takes donations I would assume. Similarly oxfam raises lots that way - which is directed to charitable causes.
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.
He appears to have written that what he was going to say was: "Whatsmore [sic] it makes these women deeply unattractive. What man would ever want to be in a relationship with a woman unless they were a self-hating simp."
What he actually said was cruder than that in wording, but fairly close. Looks bad for GB News.
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.
Furthermore they've been quite open about trying to break up the West's ability to work together.
It's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that Putin wants the EU broken up, wants Scottish and Catalan independence, wants streams of refugees heading to Europe, wants people in Europe to despise refugees, wants people to lose faith in the democratic process, wants us all to believe that journalists always have an agenda, that the system is rigged, that they're coming for your car or your garden or to make you live in a "15 minute city" prison, and so on.
Putin (much more so than Russia per se) is your enemy. All of you.
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
Go for it. Life's too short not to grab it with both hands.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires companies with 100 or more employees to report their workforce demographics every year. Bloomberg obtained 2020 and 2021 data for 88 S&P 100 companies and calculated overall US job growth at those firms.
The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.
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.
Erdoğan has said explicitly that he wants to recreate the Ottoman Empire. He has also occupied parts of Cyprus (and more recently Syria) illegally, significantly curtailed democracy within Turkey, and funded armed groups who actively menace the West. But we don't hear a peep out of anyone about it because (until he changes his mind again) he's apparently *our* shitbag. See also Saudi Arabia.
Oh so fucking what? You're allowed to condemn one thing without being obliged to name everything else that's wrong. More people are aware that Putin is a shit than realise Erogan is too. So? Stop with the whataboutery. STOP.
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 theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
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.
Imagine we have ample rental homes outside the private sector and those rents are kept affordable by local authorities. Why would this (keeping rents affordable) inevitably fail in its objective of keeping rents affordable?
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
Go for it. Life's too short not to grab it with both hands.
Thanks
It's like the scales have fallen from my eyes
What on earth am I doing? IT IS LATER THAN YOU THINK
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
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
Go for it. Life's too short not to grab it with both hands.
Things being too short to be able to grab with both hands is a problem for lots of men.
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.
Part of Boris's problem as well.
One he became PM, his act got way too much exposure.
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.
Erdoğan has said explicitly that he wants to recreate the Ottoman Empire. He has also occupied parts of Cyprus (and more recently Syria) illegally, significantly curtailed democracy within Turkey, and funded armed groups who actively menace the West. But we don't hear a peep out of anyone about it because (until he changes his mind again) he's apparently *our* shitbag. See also Saudi Arabia.
I certainly have no praise for Erdoğan. I've seen plenty of media coverage critical of Erdoğan, although I agree his invasion of parts of Syria has been underreported. But, so what? What's that got to do with views of Putin?
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.
Furthermore they've been quite open about trying to break up the West's ability to work together.
It's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that Putin wants the EU broken up, wants Scottish and Catalan independence, wants streams of refugees heading to Europe, wants people in Europe to despise refugees, wants people to lose faith in the democratic process, wants us all to believe that journalists always have an agenda, that the system is rigged, that they're coming for your car or your garden or to make you live in a "15 minute city" prison, and so on.
Putin (much more so than Russia per se) is your enemy. All of you.
Just because someone who is your enemy wants something, it doesn't follow that he is correct in thinking that it's in his interests nor that it's necessarily against your own interests.
The starting point should be an analysis of our own interests, not just picking the opposite of whatever the bogeyman-du-jour says.
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
Go for it. Life's too short not to grab it with both hands.
Things being too short to be able to grab with both hands is a problem for lots of men.
Mackinder’s books remain a riveting read. He had some opinions that were “of his time”, but much of what he wrote has much pertinence now. I have “democratic ideals and reality” on my bookshelf. Properly cynical title, it’s like something the CIA might have penned for internal use in the cold war.
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.
In sharp contrast to ancient rockers like, for example, Bob Dylan, whose fans only want to hear the same familiar songs sung to the same familiar tunes and are invariably disappointed.
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.
Furthermore they've been quite open about trying to break up the West's ability to work together.
It's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that Putin wants the EU broken up, wants Scottish and Catalan independence, wants streams of refugees heading to Europe, wants people in Europe to despise refugees, wants people to lose faith in the democratic process, wants us all to believe that journalists always have an agenda, that the system is rigged, that they're coming for your car or your garden or to make you live in a "15 minute city" prison, and so on.
Putin (much more so than Russia per se) is your enemy. All of you.
Just because someone who is your enemy wants something, it doesn't follow that he is correct in thinking that it's in his interests nor that it's necessarily against your own interests.
The starting point should be an analysis of our own interests, not just picking the opposite of whatever the bogeyman-du-jour says.
I agree with you. Putin wanting the e.g. EU broken up isn't an argument in favour of the EU. But it should make you think about it, and if you decide that yes you still want it, that there may be good or bad ways to do it.
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
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.
In sharp contrast to ancient rockers like, for example, Bob Dylan, whose fans only want to hear the same familiar songs sung to the same familiar tunes and are invariably disappointed.
Yes, musicians are totally the opposite. The fans want to hear the old hits from decades ago, but the band wants to play their new experimental album!
There’s a few comics who have a really famous bit, which they might do at the end of the show, but mostly you’re going to comedy to hear a load of new stuff. You’d be a little pissed off if you’d just paid £25 to sit in a theatre and listen to basically the same hour that you saw on Netflix three months ago, plus perhaps a couple of jokes about the town you’re in and a few audience interactions!
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.
Bit like with Covid and Lockdown. I so often see a rant about what a dreadful thing Lockdown was and think to myself if the author were only to add in brackets after Lockdown (sadly necessitated by that bastard virus Covid), add it just the once, I mean, not every time, I'd be nodding along till my head fell off.
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 see no reason why 45% is to the right of the Laffer Curve peak, but 75% is to the left of it.
"Xenophobic English nationalists... eg Braverman, Patel"
Is it a coincidence that he's chosen two women from ethnic minorities to represent the xenophobic English nationalists?
Or is it the zeal of converted?
You might argue that Vivek Ramaswamy is a member of the equivalent US group.
It's more that, as ethnic minority people. they can say stuff that whites would generally be too terrified to say, because "racist!!"
Being serious for a moment, perhaps ethnic minorities have an inkling that if the floodgates of migration are thrown open wide the newcomers will be piling into schools and surgeries in their neck of the woods rather than in places where well-meaning white people live.
Not bad, forgot the revolutionary communists though.....
Aren't they largely in the Libertarian Nutter slice?
(The overlap between the two is a bit like an Escher drawing of an impossible object. Bits look coherent but then you stop and think... That Doesn't Make Sense.)
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 suppose it could have been a conscious decision to eschew mainstream work to avoid cannibalising revenue from his live work. It's not totally unheard of to do that.
It is a bit unusual though. Whilst you lose your ability to reuse material by giving it a wide audience, you do tend to get compensated reasonably well for that, and you get exposure that reels people into your live work.
He was fishing from a bit of a dwindling pond in the end because the world was changing a fair bit around him. Okay, he was a "name" and there was always some market for his material, so he made a living. His Embassy Club gave him an income. Bit he wasn't really big league in the way that his genuine abilities as a performer meant he perhaps should have been. He was notorious more than successful, and it was ultimately a bit of a case of talent unfulfilled.
The UK Government is taking the EU to court in the first case of its kind since Brexit after SNP ministers in Scotland complained Brussels hit them with fines that were too steep.
The Scottish Government under Nicola Sturgeon was forced to pay a £5.6 million (€6.4 million) fine after a 2020 audit uncovered failures with how it was administering Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments to Scottish farmers.
SNP ministers have now asked the UK Government to argue their case in the European Court of Justice and state that the fine should be reduced by around £2.4 million (€2.7 million).
They cannot go to court themselves to challenge the fines as the European Commission’s decision to impose the penalty was initially enforced against the UK as the relevant member state.
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
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.
Iliza does it like that, and released a special about the process...
Kevin Bridges also made an entire series based on his broadcast show and got another special out of material from his first
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
Scotland?
Brockley!
A small fairground has just pitched up on Hilly Fields for some reason.
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.
In sharp contrast to ancient rockers like, for example, Bob Dylan, whose fans only want to hear the same familiar songs sung to the same familiar tunes and are invariably disappointed.
Yes, musicians are totally the opposite. The fans want to hear the old hits from decades ago, but the band wants to play their new experimental album!
There’s a few comics who have a really famous bit, which they might do at the end of the show, but mostly you’re going to comedy to hear a load of new stuff. You’d be a little pissed off if you’d just paid £25 to sit in a theatre and listen to basically the same hour that you saw on Netflix three months ago, plus perhaps a couple of jokes about the town you’re in and a few audience interactions!
Is it music/comedy or superstar/not superstar?
The Pythons, or whatever counts as the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue crowd these days, definitely have audiences expecting their Greatest Hits, but most comedians aren't as big as that.
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
Scotland?
Brockley!
A small fairground has just pitched up on Hilly Fields for some reason.
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
This year, I spent one night in Edinburgh, and that's my only overnight stay away from Ilford all year
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
Go for it. Life's too short not to grab it with both hands.
Things being too short to be able to grab with both hands is a problem for lots of men.
Not bad, forgot the revolutionary communists though.....
Aren't they largely in the Libertarian Nutter slice?
(The overlap between the two is a bit like an Escher drawing of an impossible object. Bits look coherent but then you stop and think... That Doesn't Make Sense.)
I find it easier to divide them all into four tribes, charlatans, nutters, nice but dims, and those who have left.
No one familiar with American politics should be surprised by the prosecutors going after America's most prominent crime family, headed, of course, by Donald Trump. That's a common path for ambitious lawyers, and they may even be doing us some good, net.
Trump is especially a target because of his attitude, which reminds me of this passage from Breslin's "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight":
"The basis of the Mafia was that it ignored all local laws, as they were laws set down by foreigners. The Mafia ruled by its own code. The Mafia liked this way of life so much that it has not given it up through the centuries. A true Sicilian in America must smoke in the subway. Baccala [the head of one of the five big Mafia families in New York City] himself goes three blocks out of the way for the privilege of going the wrong way on a one-way street."
And Trump apparently got a kick out of stealing classified documents, and then refusing to return them.
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
This year, I spent one night in Edinburgh, and that's my only overnight stay away from Ilford all year
From much earlier in the thread: Too expensive weddings are a problem in the US, too. Recently I have been wondering again whether there is a negative correlation, so that the more expensive the wedding, the more likely the marriage will fail. (I seem to recall some study finding that, but it was so long ago that I can't be sure.)
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.
Erdoğan has said explicitly that he wants to recreate the Ottoman Empire. He has also occupied parts of Cyprus (and more recently Syria) illegally, significantly curtailed democracy within Turkey, and funded armed groups who actively menace the West. But we don't hear a peep out of anyone about it because (until he changes his mind again) he's apparently *our* shitbag. See also Saudi Arabia.
I certainly have no praise for Erdoğan. I've seen plenty of media coverage critical of Erdoğan, although I agree his invasion of parts of Syria has been underreported. But, so what? What's that got to do with views of Putin?
My point is that grave as Putin's sins are, the implacable enmity we're meant to feel and profess against him and his Russia is not based on those actions, but on an atmosphere generated by the geostrategic rivalry between Russia and America. It's OK to sweep Erdoğan under the carpet because he's considered an important ally. As I don't share a pre-existing sentiment against Russia (or in favour of Turkey), I come at it from the perspective of us taking a dispassionate and realistic view of both (and all) countries.
A somewhat unusual set of local by-elections tomorrow. There are 3 Lib Dem defences ( one in Highland and 2 in South Norfolk). Also a Con defence in North Yorkshire and a Lab defence in Wolverhampton.
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 see no reason why 45% is to the right of the Laffer Curve peak, but 75% is to the left of it.
Oh 75% is well to the right of the Laffer curve - the issue is as I've pointed out before is that if you reduce the rate UC tapers away at you will end with a lot of people (who earn slightly too much to qualify for UC currently) starting to get a bit...
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 see no reason why 45% is to the right of the Laffer Curve peak, but 75% is to the left of it.
The term 'Laffer Curve' gives a pseudo scientific sense of precision and certainty to something that is little more than a statement of the obvious; that if taxes are 0% the government gets no revenue because nobody pays any tax, and ditto if they are 100% because nobody gets out of bed. Where in between is optimal depends on umpteen things which can't be modelled with any confidence at all. Fwiw (not much) I have the sweet spot for top rate income tax here in the UK (keeping all else constant) at around 65%.
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.
In sharp contrast to ancient rockers like, for example, Bob Dylan, whose fans only want to hear the same familiar songs sung to the same familiar tunes and are invariably disappointed.
Yes, musicians are totally the opposite. The fans want to hear the old hits from decades ago, but the band wants to play their new experimental album!
There’s a few comics who have a really famous bit, which they might do at the end of the show, but mostly you’re going to comedy to hear a load of new stuff. You’d be a little pissed off if you’d just paid £25 to sit in a theatre and listen to basically the same hour that you saw on Netflix three months ago, plus perhaps a couple of jokes about the town you’re in and a few audience interactions!
That certainly used to be the case with music but then came the rise of tribute bands who did perform the greatest hits, exactly like the records, and then bands re-formed as their own tribute acts.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires companies with 100 or more employees to report their workforce demographics every year. Bloomberg obtained 2020 and 2021 data for 88 S&P 100 companies and calculated overall US job growth at those firms.
The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.
Those figures suggest BLM might have had a point about Black joblessness before 2020.
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 theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
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.
In a free market, yes. In a free market if rents go high then people will build new homes to let out in order to capitalise, which brings prices back down into equilibrium.
The problem though is we don't have a free market. Anything but in fact.
Currently the availability of properties has nothing to do with supply and demand, or rental prices. That link has been completely broken, due to our broken planning system. As a result supply and demand are out of sync, the prices are far too high and have been for nearly two decades, but construction of sufficient scale isn't happening.
So in those circumstances, we have all the harms of rent control (insufficient supply) with none of the benefits. Worst of both worlds.
We should in my view liberalise the housing market, but if we are to have a ridiculously regulated housing market as we do at present there's no economic reason rent control should not be a part of that, as we already have it's harms occurring anyway.
Pick a poison. I prefer deregulation. But to say regulation except this one is illogical.
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?
This year I've only been to Thailand (for two months), Vetnam for a week, Cambodia for a week, Egypt for two weeks, Ibiza for a week, a Midwest/East Coast US road trip for 3 weeks, Ukraine and Romania for three weeks, France for a week, the Welsh Marches for half a week, and THAT'S IT
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
Scotland?
Brockley!
A small fairground has just pitched up on Hilly Fields for some reason.
Brockley is a party capital.
Lived on Avignon Road for a while in the 80's.
I don't know what Avignon Road was like in the 80s but it's probably not like that anymore.
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.
In sharp contrast to ancient rockers like, for example, Bob Dylan, whose fans only want to hear the same familiar songs sung to the same familiar tunes and are invariably disappointed.
Yes, musicians are totally the opposite. The fans want to hear the old hits from decades ago, but the band wants to play their new experimental album!
There’s a few comics who have a really famous bit, which they might do at the end of the show, but mostly you’re going to comedy to hear a load of new stuff. You’d be a little pissed off if you’d just paid £25 to sit in a theatre and listen to basically the same hour that you saw on Netflix three months ago, plus perhaps a couple of jokes about the town you’re in and a few audience interactions!
Is it music/comedy or superstar/not superstar?
The Pythons, or whatever counts as the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue crowd these days, definitely have audiences expecting their Greatest Hits, but most comedians aren't as big as that.
Good point. I think your examples are more like a band, rather than the traditional standup routines, although I do have to laugh a little at the idea that an improv troupe can be so famous as to have a list of greatest hits! They were looking for some of their famous double entendres, and boy did Samantha give them one.
"Xenophobic English nationalists... eg Braverman, Patel"
Is it a coincidence that he's chosen two women from ethnic minorities to represent the xenophobic English nationalists?
Or is it the zeal of converted?
You might argue that Vivek Ramaswamy is a member of the equivalent US group.
I wonder what reaction Goodness Gracious Me's Kapoors/Coopers sketch would get if it were aired now.
Or It Ain't Half Hot Mum.
Mind you, I'm not sure you could run with the Airplane paedophilia gags either.
It's amazing how much of the mainstream output of the 70s is hard to watch now. Eg just the other day I caught one of the original Van Der Valks, and the casually chauvinist way in which our hero (Van Der Valk) treated his wife of many years was absolutely shocking. I had to turn it off - which was no great loss since I'd mainly tuned in for that great theme tune. Da da da der, da da der, da da da da da der ...
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 see no reason why 45% is to the right of the Laffer Curve peak, but 75% is to the left of it.
Oh 75% is well to the right of the Laffer curve - the issue is as I've pointed out before is that if you reduce the rate UC tapers away at you will end with a lot of people (who earn slightly too much to qualify for UC currently) starting to get a bit...
And as I've pointed out before, so long as those getting a bit are still net contributors and aren't avoiding their taxes, that's not problematic at all.
I couldn't care less if Richard Branson gets UBI, which could simply be netted off tax rather than actually paid out so long as he pays his taxes in full, what difference does it make?
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 theory predicts that availability of rental properties falls in proportion to extent the rent control “bites” into the market rent.
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.
Imagine we have ample rental homes outside the private sector and those rents are kept affordable by local authorities. Why would this (keeping rents affordable) inevitably fail in its objective of keeping rents affordable?
Ample is your answer
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.
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.
In sharp contrast to ancient rockers like, for example, Bob Dylan, whose fans only want to hear the same familiar songs sung to the same familiar tunes and are invariably disappointed.
Yes, musicians are totally the opposite. The fans want to hear the old hits from decades ago, but the band wants to play their new experimental album!
There’s a few comics who have a really famous bit, which they might do at the end of the show, but mostly you’re going to comedy to hear a load of new stuff. You’d be a little pissed off if you’d just paid £25 to sit in a theatre and listen to basically the same hour that you saw on Netflix three months ago, plus perhaps a couple of jokes about the town you’re in and a few audience interactions!
That certainly used to be the case with music but then came the rise of tribute bands who did perform the greatest hits, exactly like the records, and then bands re-formed as their own tribute acts.
Do I lose all my kudos points by admitting that I was 'introduced' to ABBA via Erasure's Abba-esque EP back in 1992? In my defence, I was only 19 at the time ...
Comments
It's uncomfortable for some to acknowledge that Putin wants the EU broken up, wants Scottish and Catalan independence, wants streams of refugees heading to Europe, wants people in Europe to despise refugees, wants people to lose faith in the democratic process, wants us all to believe that journalists always have an agenda, that the system is rigged, that they're coming for your car or your garden or to make you live in a "15 minute city" prison, and so on.
Putin (much more so than Russia per se) is your enemy. All of you.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/
Enough. It's time to get off my butt and really get out there
I would say that where education is being provided below cost to beneficiaries it is charitable. Where beneficiaries are paying full cost that is just service provision.
I think you're misreading the figures? They spent £68m on trading, they got an income of £90.3m from trading sales. So if you want to focus on the shops bit, they are generating £20+m for use on their humanitarian/development projects.
Your private school also takes donations I would assume. Similarly oxfam raises lots that way - which is directed to charitable causes.
He appears to have written that what he was going to say was: "Whatsmore [sic] it makes these women deeply unattractive. What man would ever want to be in a relationship with a woman unless they were a self-hating simp."
What he actually said was cruder than that in wording, but fairly close. Looks bad for GB News.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requires companies with 100 or more employees to report their workforce demographics every year. Bloomberg obtained 2020 and 2021 data for 88 S&P 100 companies and calculated overall US job growth at those firms.
The overall job growth included 20,524 White workers. The other 302,570 jobs — or 94% of the headcount increase — went to people of color.
More people are aware that Putin is a shit than realise Erogan is too. So? Stop with the whataboutery. STOP.
It's like the scales have fallen from my eyes
What on earth am I doing? IT IS LATER THAN YOU THINK
Maybe the Isle of Man, push the boat out a bit
One he became PM, his act got way too much exposure.
The starting point should be an analysis of our own interests, not just picking the opposite of whatever the bogeyman-du-jour says.
2.44 LAB
3.4 LD
3.4 CP
(100.6% book)
I started laying the LDs at an unbelievably short 1.45 so I'm nicely green on all but them.
Anyone have more news direct from the constituency?
GB News has suspended Dan Wootton following comments made on his programme by Laurence Fox, the broadcaster has said.
The statement from GB News said: “GB News has suspended Dan Wootton following comments made on his programme by Laurence Fox last night.
“This follows our decision earlier today to formally suspend Mr Fox.
“We are conducting a full investigation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/27/gb-news-suspends-dan-wootton-after-laurence-foxs-remarks-on-show
But it should make you think about it, and if you decide that yes you still want it, that there may be good or bad ways to do it.
There’s a few comics who have a really famous bit, which they might do at the end of the show, but mostly you’re going to comedy to hear a load of new stuff. You’d be a little pissed off if you’d just paid £25 to sit in a theatre and listen to basically the same hour that you saw on Netflix three months ago, plus perhaps a couple of jokes about the town you’re in and a few audience interactions!
(The overlap between the two is a bit like an Escher drawing of an impossible object. Bits look coherent but then you stop and think... That Doesn't Make Sense.)
It is a bit unusual though. Whilst you lose your ability to reuse material by giving it a wide audience, you do tend to get compensated reasonably well for that, and you get exposure that reels people into your live work.
He was fishing from a bit of a dwindling pond in the end because the world was changing a fair bit around him. Okay, he was a "name" and there was always some market for his material, so he made a living. His Embassy Club gave him an income. Bit he wasn't really big league in the way that his genuine abilities as a performer meant he perhaps should have been. He was notorious more than successful, and it was ultimately a bit of a case of talent unfulfilled.
The UK Government is taking the EU to court in the first case of its kind since Brexit after SNP ministers in Scotland complained Brussels hit them with fines that were too steep.
The Scottish Government under Nicola Sturgeon was forced to pay a £5.6 million (€6.4 million) fine after a 2020 audit uncovered failures with how it was administering Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments to Scottish farmers.
SNP ministers have now asked the UK Government to argue their case in the European Court of Justice and state that the fine should be reduced by around £2.4 million (€2.7 million).
They cannot go to court themselves to challenge the fines as the European Commission’s decision to impose the penalty was initially enforced against the UK as the relevant member state.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/26/government-sues-eu-first-case-since-brexit-snp-fines-cap/
(as we were talking Bernard Manning.... https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xkuRM5wQ7bs )
Kevin Bridges also made an entire series based on his broadcast show and got another special out of material from his first
Brockley is a party capital.
The Pythons, or whatever counts as the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue crowd these days, definitely have audiences expecting their Greatest Hits, but most comedians aren't as big as that.
Mind you, I'm not sure you could run with the Airplane paedophilia gags either.
Trump is especially a target because of his attitude, which reminds me of this passage from Breslin's "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight":
"The basis of the Mafia was that it ignored all local laws, as they were laws set down by foreigners. The Mafia ruled by its own code. The Mafia liked this way of life so much that it has not given it up through the centuries. A true Sicilian in America must smoke in the subway. Baccala [the head of one of the five big Mafia families in New York City] himself goes three blocks out of the way for the privilege of going the wrong way on a one-way street."
And Trump apparently got a kick out of stealing classified documents, and then refusing to return them.
New Thread
The problem though is we don't have a free market. Anything but in fact.
Currently the availability of properties has nothing to do with supply and demand, or rental prices. That link has been completely broken, due to our broken planning system. As a result supply and demand are out of sync, the prices are far too high and have been for nearly two decades, but construction of sufficient scale isn't happening.
So in those circumstances, we have all the harms of rent control (insufficient supply) with none of the benefits. Worst of both worlds.
We should in my view liberalise the housing market, but if we are to have a ridiculously regulated housing market as we do at present there's no economic reason rent control should not be a part of that, as we already have it's harms occurring anyway.
Pick a poison. I prefer deregulation. But to say regulation except this one is illogical.
I couldn't care less if Richard Branson gets UBI, which could simply be netted off tax rather than actually paid out so long as he pays his taxes in full, what difference does it make?
If you have say, a hundred homes you rent at far below the prevailing market rate, this won’t shift the market (much). There is then a delta between the artificially low rate and the market rate. Subletting is then inevitable.
“Ample” is the number of properties required to shift the market price.