Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Because as has been well rehearsed on here the BBC projects soft power. To the globe. And some scrote in Wadjidadji might listen to the BBC or its presenters and think oh right that's what the UK's official state broadcaster, and therefore the UK thinks.
The BBC can't have it both ways. Either it is a National Treasure and has therefore to mind its Ps and Qs or it lines up with every other broadcaster and is a mouthpiece for the proprietor. The BBC's proprietor is us and we don't agree about anything.
Will someone let the US electorate know that it's the economy, stupids.
https://twitter.com/SimonWDC/status/1731720857578328492 The US economy: - GDP growth 5.2% - Inflation zero last month - Wage growth remains robust - Strongest recovery in G7 - Lowest uninsured rate in US history - Median wealth up 37% 2020-2022 - Dow nearing all-time high
There's an interesting theory that what people are perceiving as a bad economy is actually just an effect of decreasing inequality. People below them are doing better, and they don't like it because it makes them feel relatively poorer.
Could I have a source for that, because economic growth combined with falling inequality should mean that people in the middle and lower-middle should be doing extremely well on an absolute basis.
That's the point. They might be doing well on an absolute basis, but if conveniences that depend on access to cheap labour are scarcer (because those people's incomes have gone up even more in percentage terms) then they won't feel it.
Bidenomics has also created strong wage growth-esp for working class families-that has outpaced inflation, by supporting a tight labor market through policy.
This real wage growth for the bottom and middle income Americans has led to a historic reduction in wage inequality.
OK, let me rephrase.
Do Americans perceive the economy as weak because - although their income have risen - so have mortgage and car payments? Or because inequality has declined?
Is there any evidence that it is the latter?
The theory is that it's the latter. It's just speculation to account for the discrepancy between perception and 'reality', as defined by statistics. It does make some intuitive sense.
Like everything, polling on consumer sentiment is distorted by polarisation. Basically, Democrats are happy with the economy and Republicans say the economy is in the toilet. Under Trump it was the other way round.
51% of independents say the economy is poor in this poll and a majority of Democrats say it's either poor or only fair:
If you look at the per state numbers, Biden is doing particularly badly in the Sun Belt (Nevada, Arizona), but is holding up quite well in the Rust Belt. I think that (a) makes the path to 270 for Trump run through the South, capturing NV, AZ and GA; and (b) makes interest rates the more plausible explanation for both Biden's unpopularity and people thinking the economy is not doing great. Simply, people in the Sun Belt spend a lot more of their salaries on interest payments.
Why do higher interest rates hurt incumbent governments? For sure, people who are indebted resent them, and are motivated to vote against the government, but you might think that savers would be motivated to vote for the government.
Personally I've never been so well off as I am right now (which probably puts me in the underclass of PB posters), but I, like the public, do not do gratitude.
We expect things to go pretty well, as that's our due. Plus even if savers are better placed now it's hard to ignore how nothing works yet everything costs more.
I was wondering more generally, rather than just in relation to the UK.
But, I think that's probably it. When things go well for me, it's due to my own efforts. When they go badly, it's due to the government.
My position is similar to yours. All my debts are paid, and my practice has never been more successful than now.
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Actually most major corporations too have policies against bringing the company into disrepute and that includes engaging in controversial politics. No reason the public sector shouldn't have the same standards.
If you want to engage in politics anonymously or privately as any individual that is entirely reasonable.
The second you start leveraging a company or the state's role to magnify your views, that is gross misconduct.
The question is where to draw the line. I'd probably draw it more loosely than you would, americans would probably draw the line much more loosely than many in the UK given their broader free speech history, but is it unreasonable for any employer to place some restrictions? Freedom to accept the consequences of one's speech and all that. And so the question of what level of restriction is reasonable for any state employee is definitely up for debate. Even if one leans towards as little as possible is that the same as none?
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Actually most major corporations too have policies against bringing the company into disrepute and that includes engaging in controversial politics. No reason the public sector shouldn't have the same standards.
If you want to engage in politics anonymously or privately as any individual that is entirely reasonable.
The second you start leveraging a company or the state's role to magnify your views, that is gross misconduct.
The question is where to draw the line. I'd probably draw it more loosely than you would, americans would probably draw the line much more loosely than many in the UK given their broader free speech history, but is it unreasonable for any employer to place some restrictions? Freedom to accept the consequences of one's speech and all that. And so the question of what level of restriction is reasonable for any state employee is definitely up for debate. Even if one leans towards as little as possible is that the same as none?
People have the absolute right to free speech.
They also have the right to face the consequences of their actions.
And if you engage in gross misconduct, those consequences can include termination of your contract of employment.
If we are doing the political views of British sitcom writers, then Anthony Jay (Yes Minister) was a Conservative Party member and speechwriter.
Not quite a sitcom writer, but Stephen Fry used to write speeches for Kinnock.
And how did that pan out?
Given Fry's compulsive inclination towards excessive verbiage in every tome he scribes, I do deliberate over the notion that the term "The Welsh Windbag" might perchance have been a consequence of Fry's métier.
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Actually most major corporations too have policies against bringing the company into disrepute and that includes engaging in controversial politics. No reason the public sector shouldn't have the same standards.
If you want to engage in politics anonymously or privately as any individual that is entirely reasonable.
The second you start leveraging a company or the state's role to magnify your views, that is gross misconduct.
The question is where to draw the line. I'd probably draw it more loosely than you would, americans would probably draw the line much more loosely than many in the UK given their broader free speech history, but is it unreasonable for any employer to place some restrictions? Freedom to accept the consequences of one's speech and all that. And so the question of what level of restriction is reasonable for any state employee is definitely up for debate. Even if one leans towards as little as possible is that the same as none?
People have the absolute right to free speech.
I would question whether the legal position in this country is that there is an 'absolute' right.
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Actually most major corporations too have policies against bringing the company into disrepute and that includes engaging in controversial politics. No reason the public sector shouldn't have the same standards.
If you want to engage in politics anonymously or privately as any individual that is entirely reasonable.
The second you start leveraging a company or the state's role to magnify your views, that is gross misconduct.
The question is where to draw the line. I'd probably draw it more loosely than you would, americans would probably draw the line much more loosely than many in the UK given their broader free speech history, but is it unreasonable for any employer to place some restrictions? Freedom to accept the consequences of one's speech and all that. And so the question of what level of restriction is reasonable for any state employee is definitely up for debate. Even if one leans towards as little as possible is that the same as none?
People have the absolute right to free speech.
I would question whether the legal position in this country is that there is an 'absolute' right.
You're right.
In my view people should, they don't in this country and I deplore that.
But free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you lose your job and get "cancelled" because you brought your employer into disrepute, then that's your fault, not anyone else's.
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Because as has been well rehearsed on here the BBC projects soft power. To the globe. And some scrote in Wadjidadji might listen to the BBC or its presenters and think oh right that's what the UK's official state broadcaster, and therefore the UK thinks.
The BBC can't have it both ways. Either it is a National Treasure and has therefore to mind its Ps and Qs or it lines up with every other broadcaster and is a mouthpiece for the proprietor. The BBC's proprietor is us and we don't agree about anything.
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
I forgot the decades that Kelsey Grammer spent working as the highest paid presenter at our national broadcaster
Was it covid that made the right such delicate snowflakes or social media?
I gently mocked the absurdity of making an equivalence between a foreign actor and the highest paid Beeb presenter in this context
You seem to be the one melting..
Just bored of all the whinging about whatever. The way I see it, celebs can say what they want, their bosses and fans can hold them to account if its whats in their contract/they want respectively. Its really not a big deal.
But it gets really silly when our Home Secretary and PM spend their time dealing with flippant observations of a football presenter when their are millions waiting for operations, the care system is broken, law and order is broken and government finances look horrible.
If Gary Linekar wanted to create an anonymous handle here and discuss politics here, he'd have every right to do so. If he wanted to create an anonymous handle on Twitter and discuss politics there, he'd have every right to do so. There is no problem in discussing politics.
Where there is a problem, is bringing your employer into it. If you publicly announce yourself as working for Amazon, or Apple, or Facebook, or the taxpayer then your employer whether that be Amazon, or Apple, or Facebook, or the taxpayer is suddenly involved in everything you're doing.
Of course if he created an anonymous handle, then he wouldn't have millions of followers - but c'est la vie, he has those millions of followers because of his employment not because of his politics. If he wishes to quit his employment, he can, and he might keep most of those followers but in the mean time . . .
Based on Ashcroft's poll Biden beats Haley 32% to 17%, Biden beats Ramaswamy 33% to 18% and Biden beats DeSantis 35% to 23%.
However Trump beats Biden 38% to 34%. Only 25% of voters think Trump should still run for president if he is convicted and jailed next year though,
The only person's view which matters on that question is Trump's. He doesn't care whether he can win in that situation after all, it's more important that others lose.
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Actually most major corporations too have policies against bringing the company into disrepute and that includes engaging in controversial politics. No reason the public sector shouldn't have the same standards.
If you want to engage in politics anonymously or privately as any individual that is entirely reasonable.
If a doctor or police officer privately campaigns on an issue without advertising themselves as a doctor or police officer that's one thing, but the second you start leveraging a company or the state's role to magnify your views, that is gross misconduct.
Well that's very different to what you originally proposed (no surprise, your modus operandi).
Good to see the consensus that celebs can publicise their own views without it becoming a massive thing. Saves us all another discussion next time Lineker says something edgy.
Let the BBC raise its revenue privately and I couldn't care less what its presenters say.
Plenty of Sky and ITV and other presenters say crazy shit, I don't have to watch them, and don't have to pay for them.
But we're taxed to pay for Lineker et al even if we don't watch his show, or his channel at all.
You can't censor people's opinions because they're paid from the public purse. Do you think you own them or something?
Of course you can.
If you're paid from the public purse, then keep your views to yourself, or stop taking the public's money.
Why?
There are some roles where doing so would undermine ministers (senior civil servants, for example), but I see no reason why a doctor can't have strong public views on the environment, or a police officer on supermarket competition, or a HMRC employee on public transport provision.
You're attacking the freedom of expression of a very large proportion of the population.
Because as has been well rehearsed on here the BBC projects soft power. To the globe. And some scrote in Wadjidadji might listen to the BBC or its presenters and think oh right that's what the UK's official state broadcaster, and therefore the UK thinks.
The BBC can't have it both ways. Either it is a National Treasure and has therefore to mind its Ps and Qs or it lines up with every other broadcaster and is a mouthpiece for the proprietor. The BBC's proprietor is us and we don't agree about anything.
Without wishing to beat a dead hose, but is this really breaking news, BBC? I suppose technically it is, but is it 'flashing banner update' worthy?
It's the only one they can still afford to send a reporter to.
I'm not expert enough to say whether it deserved to win. On the winner Jesse Darling (good name);
'He has said he was inspired by "the effects of many years of austerity, Brexit, the pandemic" and the "hostile environment" immigration policy.'
Might his political views have played a part in winning the prize? Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. However so much of contemporary art is supposed to be about 'challenging' the viewer isn't it? Which makes me think that the art world seems rather small 'c' conservative. Preferring works that reinforce what the target audience already believes instead of making them think again.
Jesse was born in Oxford and now lives in Berlin where he is presumably well placed to comment upon life in the UK in 2023.
Comments
The BBC can't have it both ways. Either it is a National Treasure and has therefore to mind its Ps and Qs or it lines up with every other broadcaster and is a mouthpiece for the proprietor. The BBC's proprietor is us and we don't agree about anything.
But, I think that's probably it. When things go well for me, it's due to my own efforts. When they go badly, it's due to the government.
My position is similar to yours. All my debts are paid, and my practice has never been more successful than now.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/12/my-latest-us-polling-and-what-it-means-on-ukraine/
They also have the right to face the consequences of their actions.
And if you engage in gross misconduct, those consequences can include termination of your contract of employment.
In my view people should, they don't in this country and I deplore that.
But free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
If you lose your job and get "cancelled" because you brought your employer into disrepute, then that's your fault, not anyone else's.
But it gets really silly when our Home Secretary and PM spend their time dealing with flippant observations of a football presenter when their are millions waiting for operations, the care system is broken, law and order is broken and government finances look horrible.
However Trump beats Biden 38% to 34%. Only 25% of US voters think Trump should still run for president if he is convicted and jailed next year though, albeit that is still more than the number who are confirmed supporters for other GOP candidates
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2023/12/my-latest-us-polling-and-what-it-means-on-ukraine/
Where there is a problem, is bringing your employer into it. If you publicly announce yourself as working for Amazon, or Apple, or Facebook, or the taxpayer then your employer whether that be Amazon, or Apple, or Facebook, or the taxpayer is suddenly involved in everything you're doing.
Of course if he created an anonymous handle, then he wouldn't have millions of followers - but c'est la vie, he has those millions of followers because of his employment not because of his politics. If he wishes to quit his employment, he can, and he might keep most of those followers but in the mean time . . .
NEW THREAD
My own spelling is on occasion pretty ropey, so I’m not judging.
'He has said he was inspired by "the effects of many years of austerity, Brexit, the pandemic" and the "hostile environment" immigration policy.'
Might his political views have played a part in winning the prize? Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. However so much of contemporary art is supposed to be about 'challenging' the viewer isn't it? Which makes me think that the art world seems rather small 'c' conservative. Preferring works that reinforce what the target audience already believes instead of making them think again.
Jesse was born in Oxford and now lives in Berlin where he is presumably well placed to comment upon life in the UK in 2023.