Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
Interesting argument as far as it goes but the problem is the differential in manpower. Russia has much more of it so can afford more losses. And whilst Ukraine may not have lost as many troops as Russia they have still lost a huge number. Regardless of weapons sent you still need the manpower. Now the way to make up this manpower differential would be to send in NATO troops. That would likely near guarantee victory short of a nuclear conflagaration. But you are unwilling to do this. Why?
Well, if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine stops fighting.
It's their people and their call to make, not ours.
Well not really. Its the leaders like Zelensky calling the shots. Conflating the decisions of ukraines leaders with the will of the people may not be correct. Many young men are hiding from conscription are you telling me they want the fighting to continue.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests...
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Sure, but... 50 years ago. Don't they let you have access to Youtube in Moscow?
I know of Madonna, she’s been in films. But I had to Google Lu Lu.
BORIS JOHNSON: Putin's interview with his fawning stooge Tucker Carlson was straight out of Hitler's playbook. I pray Americans see through this unholy charade
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
I was the same. But one of my colleagues is a Swifty and persuaded me to listen to Midnights.
My verdict: Not too bad, but not as good as Natalie Imbruglia in her prime.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Lulu campaigned for Thatcher in 1979.
Not to mention Jimmy Saville. Not all celeb's are lefties. Or indeed paedophiles.
(For avoidance of doubt - I am sure Lulu is not a paedo - if anything I suspect she skews older man as she has taste. #olderman #available)
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I just watched the video for Shake it off. I think the word I would use is....banal. But it has had 3.4bn, yes billion views on Youtube so I am clearly wrong.
Ronnie R’s filmography was not Royal Shakespeare Co either. Personally I’d rather vote for McConaughey than Swift. He’s a proper purple he is.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
Adding nothing whatsoever to any conversation is a high barrier for exclusion.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
Adding nothing whatsoever to any conversation is a high barrier for exclusion.
Sorry but in leons case its absolutely true....he comments on crap like large language models and heralds them as ai when he has absolutely no clue....why because he is an arty type. Sorry he and they should shut up on issues they have no idea about. I don't comment on art he shouldn't comment on anything vaguely connected to science
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I just watched the video for Shake it off. I think the word I would use is....banal. But it has had 3.4bn, yes billion views on Youtube so I am clearly wrong.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
Adding nothing whatsoever to any conversation is a high barrier for exclusion.
Where is Leon, anyway?
Either asleep or cavorting with a ladyboy doing various unspeakable things,
BORIS JOHNSON: Putin's interview with his fawning stooge Tucker Carlson was straight out of Hitler's playbook. I pray Americans see through this unholy charade
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Lulu campaigned for Thatcher in 1979.
Not to mention Jimmy Saville. Not all celeb's are lefties. Or indeed paedophiles.
(For avoidance of doubt - I am sure Lulu is not a paedo - if anything I suspect she skews older man as she has taste. #olderman #available)
Shagged a Take That in their youth I believe, so not necessarily
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Her saying “vote for Biden” doesn’t do much, especially under the circumstances. But I think she’s savvy enough that with the right team, she’d easily defeat such a poor candidate as Trump. And you can’t say that about many of the party hopefuls on either side of the aisle.
'Oprah and Dolly Parton' - the dream ticket. Can you imagine the bloodbath if Trump went up against them in a TV debate?
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I just watched the video for Shake it off. I think the word I would use is....banal. But it has had 3.4bn, yes billion views on Youtube so I am clearly wrong.
It’s in the Telegraph so it’s probably bullshit, but I think the tide is going out on this gibberish.
Clearly I need to fill the void left by @Casino_Royale but it’s incredibly tedious to keep hearing that everyone everywhere is racist and colonial all at once, especially from charities ostensibly set up to protect our national patrimony.
BORIS JOHNSON: Putin's interview with his fawning stooge Tucker Carlson was straight out of Hitler's playbook. I pray Americans see through this unholy charade
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
Interesting argument as far as it goes but the problem is the differential in manpower. Russia has much more of it so can afford more losses. And whilst Ukraine may not have lost as many troops as Russia they have still lost a huge number. Regardless of weapons sent you still need the manpower. Now the way to make up this manpower differential would be to send in NATO troops. That would likely near guarantee victory short of a nuclear conflagaration. But you are unwilling to do this. Why?
@rcs1000 There is a possible scenario where the west could support Ukraine with unlimited amounts of weapons, military hardware etc and still lose because of the manpower problem. In that scenario you would question whether sending unlimited weapons etc to Ukraine was the right thing to do, even though it 'feels' right at the moment.
My concern is that the Ukraine conflict could ultimately act as a way of burning through vast amounts of ammunition, weapons, military hardware; with the ultimate outcome of the war (ie victory for Russia) being the same. This scenario could diminish public support and appetite to go in to these conflicts, reduce public support for NATO (which obligates us to defend other eastern european countries) - and the outcome being that is more difficult to fight the next war with Russia.
In this context, supporting Ukraine the way we have and continue to do so may actually be working to Russia's advantage, and this may actually be Putin's calculation.
I fear that the conflict with Russia will be a very long one that will play out over many decades, and this Ukraine conflict may just be the opening skirmish in it.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She does a lot of very well written atmospheric “pop”, earlier with her originaly more country roots, helped by a very good team of writers including Ed Sheeran at times.
She’s been the soundtrack to millions of girls lives for a long time but also to chaps who’ve had to listen along and then found guilty pleasures!
Maybe to give you a taster listen to these three from different periods.
Now I find the latter two more tolerable but she’s a massive seller and globally super popular and makes music that works in a coffee shop, a bar, the car or background so worth being aware of. She’ll never be The Cure but nobody will reach those heights.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Ah hem.
No-one buys albums anymore, so I'm not sure that's a great metric.
It’s in the Telegraph so it’s probably bullshit, but I think the tide is going out on this gibberish.
Clearly I need to fill the void left by @Casino_Royale but it’s incredibly tedious to keep hearing that everyone everywhere is racist and colonial all at once, especially from charities ostensibly set up to protect our national patrimony.
I suspect they are assuming that by going this is the percentage of ethnic people in the uk, rural areas have less than that percentage so it must be racist and colonial....admittedly not read the report as behind the telegraph paywall but sort of assuming its along those lines
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I just watched the video for Shake it off. I think the word I would use is....banal. But it has had 3.4bn, yes billion views on Youtube so I am clearly wrong.
"Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake / Shake it off / Shake it off"
Not exactly the most edifying lyrics ever written, to be sure. But it is catchy. And, a decade later, it's still played for about 7 hours a day by every commercial radio station in the world. On top of all those Spotify plays and Youtube views.
And if you did genuinely hear it for the first time today, I'd be willing to bet that you'll hum it to yourself at least once tomorrow.
She does have cultural clout, like no other artist this century. And her fanbase is extraordinarily well-organised. I'm with Moonshine on this - she could walk the election if she wanted to
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Exactly right. Our tax system is ridiculously skewed to taxing what ordinary people earn and lets the well off with capital off far too lightly. My views on someone who earns a reasonable amount but has no capital are, of course, completely impartial in this.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
It’s in the Telegraph so it’s probably bullshit, but I think the tide is going out on this gibberish.
Clearly I need to fill the void left by @Casino_Royale but it’s incredibly tedious to keep hearing that everyone everywhere is racist and colonial all at once, especially from charities ostensibly set up to protect our national patrimony.
I suspect they are assuming that by going this is the percentage of ethnic people in the uk, rural areas have less than that percentage so it must be racist and colonial....admittedly not read the report as behind the telegraph paywall but sort of assuming its along those lines
That’s also my assumption. And if I’m right, it is what I said: gibberish.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Lulu campaigned for Thatcher in 1979.
Not to mention Jimmy Saville. Not all celeb's are lefties. Or indeed paedophiles.
(For avoidance of doubt - I am sure Lulu is not a paedo - if anything I suspect she skews older man as she has taste. #olderman #available)
Shagged a Take That in their youth I believe, so not necessarily
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She does a lot of very well written atmospheric “pop”, earlier with her originaly more country roots, helped by a very good team of writers including Ed Sheeran at times.
She’s been the soundtrack to millions of girls lives for a long time but also to chaps who’ve had to listen along and then found guilty pleasures!
Maybe to give you a taster listen to these three from different periods.
Now I find the latter two more tolerable but she’s a massive seller and globally super popular and makes music that works in a coffee shop, a bar, the car or background so worth being aware of. She’ll never be The Cure but nobody will reach those heights.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Exactly right. Our tax system is ridiculously skewed to taxing what ordinary people earn and lets the well off with capital off far too lightly. My views on someone who earns a reasonable amount but has no capital are, of course, completely impartial in this.
You'd think that if a bunch of middle aged blokes were going to spend a Friday evening chatting about Taylor Swift online, they'd choose a forum where more representative members of her fan base posted selfies.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Exactly right. Our tax system is ridiculously skewed to taxing what ordinary people earn and lets the well off with capital off far too lightly. My views on someone who earns a reasonable amount but has no capital are, of course, completely impartial in this.
Aligning rates between income and capital, and between employment and self employment, would hugely cut tax planning and save time and resources for HMRC.
You'd think that if a bunch of middle aged blokes were going to spend a Friday evening chatting about Taylor Swift online, they'd choose a forum where more representative members of her fan base posted selfies.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Sure, but... 50 years ago. Don't they let you have access to Youtube in Moscow?
I know of Madonna, she’s been in films. But I had to Google Lu Lu.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She does a lot of very well written atmospheric “pop”, earlier with her originaly more country roots, helped by a very good team of writers including Ed Sheeran at times.
She’s been the soundtrack to millions of girls lives for a long time but also to chaps who’ve had to listen along and then found guilty pleasures!
Maybe to give you a taster listen to these three from different periods.
Now I find the latter two more tolerable but she’s a massive seller and globally super popular and makes music that works in a coffee shop, a bar, the car or background so worth being aware of. She’ll never be The Cure but nobody will reach those heights.
It's Friday and I'm in love.
Brilliant song.
Hmmm. Not one of my favourites as too happy! Disintegration is my favourite album in the world followed by the Waterboys Fisherman’s Blues then Darklands by Jesus and Mary Chain. Weirdly all discovered when I was about 13.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Exactly right. Our tax system is ridiculously skewed to taxing what ordinary people earn and lets the well off with capital off far too lightly. My views on someone who earns a reasonable amount but has no capital are, of course, completely impartial in this.
Aligning rates between income and capital, and between employment and self employment, would hugely cut tax planning and save time and resources for HMRC.
And between income and inheritance etc
Whatever you receive, however you receive it, should be taxed the same rate - earnings should never be taxed more than anything else.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Taylor Swift is the McDonalds of music. Ubiquitous, everywhere, bland, mass-market, and inexplicably loved by millions. Ultimately unfulfilling and forgettable. But hey, if McDonalds can conquer the world, then Taylor Swift can surely be president.
I just fail to see how that's a good thing, in either case. What's next, Chris Martin for PM with James Blunt as Foreign Secretary?
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I just watched the video for Shake it off. I think the word I would use is....banal. But it has had 3.4bn, yes billion views on Youtube so I am clearly wrong.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Taylor Swift is the McDonalds of music. Ubiquitous, everywhere, bland, mass-market, and inexplicably loved by millions. Ultimately unfulfilling and forgettable. But hey, if McDonalds can conquer the world, then Taylor Swift can surely be president.
I just fail to see how that's a good thing, in either case. What's next, Chris Martin for PM with James Blunt as Foreign Secretary?
Blunt lives up to his name and would be great in the diplomatic game.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Lulu campaigned for Thatcher in 1979.
I could be wrong on this, but I think (despite their wealth and their frequent tax dodging), rock stars tend to swing left politically.
Lulu's support of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 does not exactly contradict this.
Where you say you could be wrong on it, maybe there’s a misconception where the truth surprises, or maybe wealth and tax dodging changes outlook on the world?
Rod Stewart Conservative. Ginger Spice. Phil Collins. Bill Wyman. Shirley Bassey. Eric Clapton. Brian Ferry. Tony Hadley. Gary Barlow. Craig David. The GoCompare man
Elvis Presley Republican A huh huh 50 cent (sold Bush in his candy shop) Kid Rock Meat Loaf Gene Simmons Johnny Ramone Mike Love Alice Cooper In fact there’s a Quora that asks Why are almost all great rock singers Republicans? 🎸
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
Interesting argument as far as it goes but the problem is the differential in manpower. Russia has much more of it so can afford more losses. And whilst Ukraine may not have lost as many troops as Russia they have still lost a huge number. Regardless of weapons sent you still need the manpower. Now the way to make up this manpower differential would be to send in NATO troops. That would likely near guarantee victory short of a nuclear conflagaration. But you are unwilling to do this. Why?
@rcs1000 There is a possible scenario where the west could support Ukraine with unlimited amounts of weapons, military hardware etc and still lose because of the manpower problem. In that scenario you would question whether sending unlimited weapons etc to Ukraine was the right thing to do, even though it 'feels' right at the moment.
My concern is that the Ukraine conflict could ultimately act as a way of burning through vast amounts of ammunition, weapons, military hardware; with the ultimate outcome of the war (ie victory for Russia) being the same. This scenario could diminish public support and appetite to go in to these conflicts, reduce public support for NATO (which obligates us to defend other eastern european countries) - and the outcome being that is more difficult to fight the next war with Russia.
In this context, supporting Ukraine the way we have and continue to do so may actually be working to Russia's advantage, and this may actually be Putin's calculation.
I fear that the conflict with Russia will be a very long one that will play out over many decades, and this Ukraine conflict may just be the opening skirmish in it.
The alternative being that we guarantee their failure?
Because that's what you're saying. You're saying leave the Ukrainians at the mercy of the Russians, because we might otherwise regret having spent some money.
And we pay a price for that too. It means, for example, that there will be a flow of refugees into Western Europe (and the UK). It means our ability to deter in future will be that little bit more constrained, because this time we blinked.
This isn't just about morality, it is also about what is best for us. And it is indisputably best for us that aggression is checked.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Ah hem.
No-one buys albums anymore, so I'm not sure that's a great metric.
Streams are generally counted in sales for chart purposes in various ways. But even in the glory days of the late 90s - when CDs made sent sales rocketing, the top sales were around 9 million - a lot, sure, but the same point applies. A small fraction of the electorate.
And it is a fairly good way of judging who is a committed fan - as it shows who has parted with cash to support an artist.
Anyway, the point is Swift is a generational megastar - she's now bigger than ever when at 34, she's at an age when most popstars are winding down a bit or getting experimental. But even that kind of fame - and she breaks pretty much every record she wants to - doesn't necessarily translate to votes as even the biggest stars' fanbases are small compared to the entire adult population.
It’s in the Telegraph so it’s probably bullshit, but I think the tide is going out on this gibberish.
Clearly I need to fill the void left by @Casino_Royale but it’s incredibly tedious to keep hearing that everyone everywhere is racist and colonial all at once, especially from charities ostensibly set up to protect our national patrimony.
Or, to be slightly more cynical: many (or perhaps even most) of the previous century's "enjoying the countryside" tropes have indeed been based on assumptions and practices that are a wee bit exclusionary and don't fit particularly well with the modern world. And haven't done for donkey's years.
And those organisations which are built around those tropes have been in a safe, sleepy coma for decades - but now, nearing death, have awakened with a jolt and are desperately trying to get ahead of the cultural shifts that they've been so comfortably ignoring for 70-odd years.
And of course they're being a bit heavy-handed and often going a bit overboard in doing so. Change happens in fits and starts, but the cultural conservatives - by trying to hold back the tide - make those dislocations much larger than they need to be.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Ah hem.
No-one buys albums anymore, so I'm not sure that's a great metric.
Streams are generally counted in sales for chart purposes in various ways. But even in the glory days of the late 90s - when CDs made sent sales rocketing, the top sales were around 9 million - a lot, sure, but the same point applies. A small fraction of the electorate.
And it is a fairly good way of judging who is a committed fan - as it shows who has parted with cash to support an artist.
Anyway, the point is Swift is a generational megastar - she's now bigger than ever when at 34, she's at an age when most popstars are winding down a bit or getting experimental. But even that kind of fame - and she breaks pretty much every record she wants to - doesn't necessarily translate to votes as even the biggest stars' fanbases are small compared to the entire adult population.
I still think @kyf_100 has it right: she’s inherently pap.
One interesting thing about her though is that she’s more attractive at 34 than she was at 24.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Was she though? Swift is absolutely huge in a way that transcends pop. Her tour has broken every record going. I'm not sure Madonna could have re-recorded her back catalogue and topped the charts with albums that were old material.
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Taylor Swift is the McDonalds of music. Ubiquitous, everywhere, bland, mass-market, and inexplicably loved by millions. Ultimately unfulfilling and forgettable. But hey, if McDonalds can conquer the world, then Taylor Swift can surely be president.
I just fail to see how that's a good thing, in either case. What's next, Chris Martin for PM with James Blunt as Foreign Secretary?
I’m not a Swifty. To me it sounds a bit bland, and preppy. Maybe because I’m in second half of twenties and music fads are for teens? Or maybe I’m different, as I listened to seventies and sixties since I entered early teens, and as we went round the table everyone else was listening to chart music and I wasn’t.
In fact today I was listening to Joan Armatrading who I haven’t listened to before, after a track on desert island discs
It’s in the Telegraph so it’s probably bullshit, but I think the tide is going out on this gibberish.
Clearly I need to fill the void left by @Casino_Royale but it’s incredibly tedious to keep hearing that everyone everywhere is racist and colonial all at once, especially from charities ostensibly set up to protect our national patrimony.
Or, to be slightly more cynical: many (or perhaps even most) of the previous century's "enjoying the countryside" tropes have indeed been based on assumptions and practices that are a wee bit exclusionary and don't fit particularly well with the modern world. And haven't done for donkey's years.
And those organisations which are built around those tropes have been in a safe, sleepy coma for decades - but now, nearing death, have awakened with a jolt and are desperately trying to get ahead of the cultural shifts that they've been so comfortably ignoring for 70-odd years.
And of course they're being a bit heavy-handed and often going a bit overboard in doing so. Change happens in fits and starts, but the cultural conservatives - by trying to hold back the tide - make those dislocations much larger than they need to be.
(lots of mixed metaphors there - sorry!)
Most people in the countryside are community minded and better connected to each other than those in the cities.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
I consider you something of an arty type pagan. I could imagine one of your diatribes graffitied font size 782 on the wall of the Tate Modern with the tofu-eating wokerati flocking to it to nod sagely at the rawness of it all.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
I was the same. But one of my colleagues is a Swifty and persuaded me to listen to Midnights.
My verdict: Not too bad, but not as good as Natalie Imbruglia in her prime.
I have a Swiftie daughter so I know only slightly more than nothing. Better with the sound off, she exudes charm, authenticity and sincerity to a degree quite rare. The charm is hard to fake. If you want someone who can sing, try Janet Baker.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
I was the same. But one of my colleagues is a Swifty and persuaded me to listen to Midnights.
My verdict: Not too bad, but not as good as Natalie Imbruglia in her prime.
I have a Swiftie daughter so I know only slightly more than nothing. Better with the sound off, she exudes charm, authenticity and sincerity to a degree quite rare. The charm is hard to fake. If you want someone who can sing, try Janet Baker.
I agree she has a preternatural abilty to project charm, authenticity and sincerity, but she is musically soul-less.
She’s a kind of new phenomenon really, the post-musical music megastar.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Untrue. The Crown, as a concept, exists to separate the state and its property from the physical person and personal property of the King.
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
No they are not the Crown except on an absurdly broad interpretation, which would have no relevance to the Crown Estate anyway which has always belonged to the serving monarch.
'The term has been used to describe a physical object or as an alternative way of referring to the monarch in their personal or official capacity. At its most expansive, the Crown has been taken as a proxy for “the government” or what in other countries would be known as “the State”. '
So you know better than the HoC LIbrary. As well as (edit: earlier on today) knowing exactly what H. Mountbatten-Windsor will be doing in the next few years in terms of nationality? The teaching at Aber must be seriously good.
I literally quoted from the HoC Library there
But you didn't say so. A big fail in rational argument. It could have been Basil Brush for all I know.
By the way if you’d like I can talk about how JK Rowling is the equivalent British candidate that would sweep all before her if she ran for PM.
Er. Have you ever read the Harry Potter books? Enid Blyton with more child abuse.
I was the right age at the right time for them. And, er, there's a reason why I plumped for Gore Vidal instead.
ETA: To be fair, I may not be entirely representative of my age group....
I was sold the very first one, before they were famous, by mistake in an Edinburgh bookshop (just along from the cafe that claimed to be the place where the author used to write them, though at least one more claimed that ....). Gave me thje screaming abdabs. I dumped it onto a friend's child who was enthralled.
By the way if you’d like I can talk about how JK Rowling is the equivalent British candidate that would sweep all before her if she ran for PM.
Er. Have you ever read the Harry Potter books? Enid Blyton with more child abuse.
I was the right age at the right time for them. And, er, there's a reason why I plumped for Gore Vidal instead.
ETA: To be fair, I may not be entirely representative of my age group....
The first 4 volumes were readable as OK children's literature, the final three utterly interminable. I was (still am) a parent of a certain age where I had to live through this including being morally compelled to read it. One or two of the films had their moments, but like LOTR and Wagner, they also had their half hours.
Rowling in the form of Robert Galbraith is worth a look, though patchy. But of course she is rightly a national treasure.
By the way if you’d like I can talk about how JK Rowling is the equivalent British candidate that would sweep all before her if she ran for PM.
Er. Have you ever read the Harry Potter books? Enid Blyton with more child abuse.
I was the right age at the right time for them. And, er, there's a reason why I plumped for Gore Vidal instead.
ETA: To be fair, I may not be entirely representative of my age group....
I was sold the very first one, before they were famous, by mistake in an Edinburgh bookshop (just along from the cafe that claimed to be the place where the author used to write them, though at least one more claimed that ....). Gave me thje screaming abdabs. I dumped it onto a friend's child who was enthralled.
1st editions go for massive amounts of money - if was still on your bookshelf you could put a lotus in your garage.
By the way if you’d like I can talk about how JK Rowling is the equivalent British candidate that would sweep all before her if she ran for PM.
Er. Have you ever read the Harry Potter books? Enid Blyton with more child abuse.
I was the right age at the right time for them. And, er, there's a reason why I plumped for Gore Vidal instead.
ETA: To be fair, I may not be entirely representative of my age group....
I was sold the very first one, before they were famous, by mistake in an Edinburgh bookshop (just along from the cafe that claimed to be the place where the author used to write them, though at least one more claimed that ....). Gave me thje screaming abdabs. I dumped it onto a friend's child who was enthralled.
Hi, little boy, you're going to come live with us but we hate you. And we're going to make you live under the stairs and be very certain that we hate you. And you're going to go to a deeply odd and slightly-abusive school, but no matter how creepy it is, it'll seem like an idyllic refuge compared to home because we hate you. And you'll be dragged home against your will in the holidays and we hate you. And no-one will believe you when you say that we hate you, but we do really really hate you, and we'll make sure you know it. And you're going to win lots at an illogical sport that is set up entirely to allow you to win at it, but we still hate you. We'll hate you forever. We hate you.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
Adding nothing whatsoever to any conversation is a high barrier for exclusion.
Sorry but in leons case its absolutely true....he comments on crap like large language models and heralds them as ai when he has absolutely no clue....why because he is an arty type. Sorry he and they should shut up on issues they have no idea about. I don't comment on art he shouldn't comment on anything vaguely connected to science
Since when did Leon demonstrate any understanding of art, anyway?
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
BORIS JOHNSON: Putin's interview with his fawning stooge Tucker Carlson was straight out of Hitler's playbook. I pray Americans see through this unholy charade
Comments
However, even the biggest stars have less of a footprint than we might assume. Swift was the biggest-selling artist of last year by a mile (she has managed this 5 times, Madonna 0 btw) - with an album she originally released a decade ago. But sold around 2 million copies - a tonne in music these days, but a drop in the ocean among an electorate that runs into the hundreds of millions.
This isn't unusual. To become a huge, global star you only need a relatively small percentage of the population to love you. After all there are a lot of 60 or 70 year olds who prefer the music of their youth.
Her dominance is in a channel (social) which inherently doesn’t reach the broadest possible audiences.
Postman don’t whistle Swift songs.
My verdict: Not too bad, but not as good as Natalie Imbruglia in her prime.
(For avoidance of doubt - I am sure Lulu is not a paedo - if anything I suspect she skews older man as she has taste. #olderman #available)
If some journo uses that, I want royalties.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/07/british-countryside-racist-white-space-charities-claim/
Without pretending I’m hugely familiar with Ms Swift’s “deep cuts”, the rest leaves me cold.
To go back a demi-generation, even Britney or Gaga gave us memorable pop anthems.
Anti-Hero: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1kbLwvqugk
Blank Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ORhEE9VVg
Clearly I need to fill the void left by @Casino_Royale but it’s incredibly tedious to keep hearing that everyone everywhere is racist and colonial all at once, especially from charities ostensibly set up to protect our national patrimony.
There is a possible scenario where the west could support Ukraine with unlimited amounts of weapons, military hardware etc and still lose because of the manpower problem. In that scenario you would question whether sending unlimited weapons etc to Ukraine was the right thing to do, even though it 'feels' right at the moment.
My concern is that the Ukraine conflict could ultimately act as a way of burning through vast amounts of ammunition, weapons, military hardware; with the ultimate outcome of the war (ie victory for Russia) being the same. This scenario could diminish public support and appetite to go in to these conflicts, reduce public support for NATO (which obligates us to defend other eastern european countries) - and the outcome being that is more difficult to fight the next war with Russia.
In this context, supporting Ukraine the way we have and continue to do so may actually be working to Russia's advantage, and this may actually be Putin's calculation.
I fear that the conflict with Russia will be a very long one that will play out over many decades, and this Ukraine conflict may just be the opening skirmish in it.
She’s been the soundtrack to millions of girls lives for a long time but also to chaps who’ve had to listen along and then found guilty pleasures!
Maybe to give you a taster listen to these three from different periods.
Country influence: https://youtu.be/8xg3vE8Ie_E?si=j8QFWgAk9jhDFhCs Love Story
Power pop: https://youtu.be/-CmadmM5cOk?si=jwnq6dQzHKG2h9vy Syle
Last album last year: https://youtu.be/b1kbLwvqugk?si=i0npM26SnEDto3ki Antihero
Now I find the latter two more tolerable but she’s a massive seller and globally super popular and makes music that works in a coffee shop, a bar, the car or background so worth being aware of. She’ll never be The Cure but nobody will reach those heights.
No-one buys albums anymore, so I'm not sure that's a great metric.
Future PM of UK.
I bet "Vic" regrets that outburst.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/02/09/keir-starmer-victoria-british-vogue-labour-leader/
Not exactly the most edifying lyrics ever written, to be sure. But it is catchy. And, a decade later, it's still played for about 7 hours a day by every commercial radio station in the world. On top of all those Spotify plays and Youtube views.
And if you did genuinely hear it for the first time today, I'd be willing to bet that you'll hum it to yourself at least once tomorrow.
She does have cultural clout, like no other artist this century. And her fanbase is extraordinarily well-organised. I'm with Moonshine on this - she could walk the election if she wanted to
(...but why would she?)
And if I’m right, it is what I said: gibberish.
Brilliant song.
Whatever you receive, however you receive it, should be taxed the same rate - earnings should never be taxed more than anything else.
I just fail to see how that's a good thing, in either case. What's next, Chris Martin for PM with James Blunt as Foreign Secretary?
Rod Stewart Conservative.
Ginger Spice.
Phil Collins.
Bill Wyman.
Shirley Bassey.
Eric Clapton.
Brian Ferry.
Tony Hadley.
Gary Barlow.
Craig David.
The GoCompare man
Elvis Presley Republican A huh huh
50 cent (sold Bush in his candy shop)
Kid Rock
Meat Loaf
Gene Simmons
Johnny Ramone
Mike Love
Alice Cooper
In fact there’s a Quora that asks Why are almost all great rock singers Republicans? 🎸
Because that's what you're saying. You're saying leave the Ukrainians at the mercy of the Russians, because we might otherwise regret having spent some money.
And we pay a price for that too. It means, for example, that there will be a flow of refugees into Western Europe (and the UK). It means our ability to deter in future will be that little bit more constrained, because this time we blinked.
This isn't just about morality, it is also about what is best for us. And it is indisputably best for us that aggression is checked.
And it is a fairly good way of judging who is a committed fan - as it shows who has parted with cash to support an artist.
Anyway, the point is Swift is a generational megastar - she's now bigger than ever when at 34, she's at an age when most popstars are winding down a bit or getting experimental. But even that kind of fame - and she breaks pretty much every record she wants to - doesn't necessarily translate to votes as even the biggest stars' fanbases are small compared to the entire adult population.
And those organisations which are built around those tropes have been in a safe, sleepy coma for decades - but now, nearing death, have awakened with a jolt and are desperately trying to get ahead of the cultural shifts that they've been so comfortably ignoring for 70-odd years.
And of course they're being a bit heavy-handed and often going a bit overboard in doing so. Change happens in fits and starts, but the cultural conservatives - by trying to hold back the tide - make those dislocations much larger than they need to be.
(lots of mixed metaphors there - sorry!)
Unlike...
One interesting thing about her though is that she’s more attractive at 34 than she was at 24.
New Thread
In fact today I was listening to Joan Armatrading who I haven’t listened to before, after a track on desert island discs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7147pAjGbpU&list=PLAFB20OoL0ea6dCv1Qo3G6tihHBTa4usg
It is patronising wokeism from these charities
I was the right age at the right time for them. And, er, there's a reason why I plumped for Gore Vidal instead.
ETA: To be fair, I may not be entirely representative of my age group....
She’s a kind of new phenomenon really, the post-musical music megastar.
Rowling in the form of Robert Galbraith is worth a look, though patchy. But of course she is rightly a national treasure.
Anteoculatia!
Er, no thanks.