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
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.