@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
"The Downing Street lobby briefing was largely taken up with questions about Lee Anderson."
Guardian blog
Another day lost for Sunak's desperate efforts to stave off a landslide.
Why? Because we can all see the absurdity of taking the whip off 30p and not off Cruella. If he'd taken her out as well we could all have moved on to whatever lie he wants us to dismiss instead.
But Cruella didn't focus on an individual so that's OK. Oh wait, Zac did and his punishment was elevation to the HoL.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
It's not due to racism, though, is it? They're not living in poor areas because racism, they're living in poor areas because they're poor. You're just pointing out that things are harder for poor people. Which I don't think anyone disputes. The fact that non-whites are overrepresented among poor people is due to historic reasons.
You might also note that people with Irish surnames are overrepresented among poor people, for the same reason.
And you're also reaching wildly in reasons why poor areas have higher levels of crime. They're over policed because they have more crime. They have higher crime because they have more people of a criminal bent. This isn't because poor people are inherently criminal; it's because people of a criminal bent tend not to do that well in life and therefore be poor.
Pointing to the Irish and going "well if it effects them similarly can it really be considered racism" forgets the relatively recent history of "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" and the long held English racism against Irish people. And in part why they are poor is because they are under paid for their labour due to their race - many workers who came here from other commonwealth countries at the Windrush period, for example, were not given jobs equal to their qualifications from home, nor were they paid on par with white people already here in the country.
WTF is "criminal bent" if not saying "some people are more inherently inclined to commit crimes than others", something which is either a clear nonsense or an argument against our entire concept of the justice system where, because if they are just predisposed to committing crimes, how can they possibly be accountable for their actions? Criminality - especially crimes such as muggings, burglaries, etc - have extremely strong correlations between poverty and times of economic decline - crime rates don't typically move based on police numbers (for example) but do move when poverty increases (in fact a funny piece of data suggested that crime went down in NYC during the period the NYPD were on strike in the 90s and early 00s - not because less crime was reported (as academics already tried to account for non reported crime) - but because the abuses of the NYPD (such as racially motivated aggressive stop and searches) were lowered and people in NYC were less likely to act antisocially if they were not being harassed by the police)
It also depends upon the integration. On holiday in Spain some time ago I was walking along one of the main shopping streets and there was a Brit there with a boogie box cranking our Rule Britannia. Any "pride" I might have felt for the sentiments were overwhelmed by feeling that he should have just stfu.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
I don't know if I've had a millionaire or billionaire's lifestyle. Probably not. All I can say is that, despite a few problems, I've genuinely had a good life so far, and enjoy it. A £150k vacation would probably bore me (even more) stupid.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
I mean he's right on this issue - and I can even see the logic as part of his overarching belief system (Britishness means a specific thing, no matter who it covers). He's wrong about basically everything else - and I don't think this is enough to "redeem" him in my eyes.
Nah, he's wrong on this one too.
Where people have dual nationality and do something particularly unpleasant and illegal, particularly if it involves some form of allegiance to a foreign state or equivalent, I don't see the big deal in revoking their British citizenship.
The issues in the Begum case is that she wasn't a dual national - she merely had the right to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship (which it understandably said it'd deny her), and the foreign entity she showed allegiance to was an internationally unrecognised and now defunct statelet. Plus, she was a child at the time, which has to be a factor in whether the state can or should impose lifetime changes on someone.
Much as I don't have much sympathy for her, if Syria chose to deport her to Britain, I think we ought to be bound to take her back.
That was broadly my view, so I was surprised when the Courts took the view that a potential citizenship was as good as an actual citizenship, and ruled that it was lawful to strip her of her British citizenship. It would seem that Bangladesh are now obliged to grant her citizenship to avoid her being stateless.
That seems absurd, but it's no less absurd than the situation where a Franco-German dual national, say, if reasonably suspected to have been committing terrorist acts on behalf of IS in Syria, could be stripped of either their French or German citizenship, but not both, and with the country who was slowest to act the one then lumped with them. It's still very arbitrary.
I think if you want to be able to strip people of citizenship then you really need to negotiate an agreed framework for deciding how to handle stateless people, or which country has to assume responsibility for someone no-one wants to give citizenship to that is a bit more sophisticated than simply slowest loses.
I think it's likely that the SC will allow an appeal on these and other grounds. Thus far the decisions are plainly wrong, in the light of law, reason and morality.
Just ask the question: Ignore Begum for a moment (whose moral ground is of course hopeless) is this a moral or rational way to treat Bangladesh?
But as a civilized country, the way we treat morally bankrupt cases like Begum tells us not about her, but about the rest of us.
Yes - as a group of lawyers who do a SCOTUS podcast I listen to say - bad cases make bad law.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
It's not propaganda at all. Again, either you're unaware, or being disingenuous.
There's a strict annual cash limit on what a President can send overseas by executive order. The shipments to Israel have eaten into that. And it wouldn't now begin to supply Ukraine with what they need. US law demand that drawdown from the Pentagon stockpile be replaced (which is where the high dollar amounts for semi-obsolete weapons come in) - and that requires Congressional approval.
Every day that Johnson delays a vote, possibly hundreds die at the front for lack of ammunition. What's beyond doubt is that Ukraine is losing territory because it's massively outgunned because of the delay.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
Judging from the little I have read, he is a mediocre (at best) writer, with nothing interesting to say. You'd have to admit even someone like Sean Thomas (who you might be aware writes for the Spectator) is much better.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Well, because historically most non-white people have entered the UK without assets and/or to do the most menial jobs, and are therefore concentrated in the poorest areas.
The coverage I saw suggested there was a pattern even when adjusted to compare areas with comparable rates of car accidents and theft.
There's a huge distorting effect of the fake accident scam, where people run out in front of cars and pretend to have been hit (or are hit, but pretend its worse than it is). This is a very popular scam in Leicester, for example, and is perpetrated mostly by recent immigrants (because it's dangerous). Payouts can be enormous. The accident rate as a whole might not be as useful as it sounds.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My default view is you make your bed and you lie on it. Begum could have avoided her banishment. But in principle I think a state should deal with their own bad guys and not push them elsewhere. Also @Malmesbury's related point. Human rights should mean dealing with transgression under the law with appropriate punishment.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Sales of obsolete stock at knock down prices (near equivalent to giving it away) can be made by the President under "Excess Defence Articles" authority. Which is possibly how Israel has been supplied.
But there's an annual limit of $500m.
Stuff like 155mm shells, or air defence missiles won't fall into this category as they're very clearly not excess stock any longer.
Weapons that have to be replaced in the military inventory (under presidential drawdown authority) have to be accounted for at full replacement cost. Which needs Congressional funding.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
FPT - I can't recall who posted it but whatever you think of Matthew Goodwin that exchange between him and Portillo on GB News was excellent.
A must watch.
Oh goodness, you've not succumbed to Fox News GBeebies?
Have you seen the clip?
Try it. Sometimes even I think Channel4 and The Guardian has a point.
I thought it was very disappointing. I'm quite a fan of Portillo and though he added very little I at least expected him to conduct a debate that might bring something insightful from Goodwin.
Goodwins argument was quite simply that the David Amess killing and the Arena bombing were both carried out by islamists so call it as it is; have an immediate halt on immigration and declare war on Islam.
Where this falls down Is that Amess was killed by a man born and brought up in southwalk who apparently had very little religion in his upbringing and the Arena bombing by someone born and brought up in Rushome
Anyone know how you apply for a professorship these days?
Except as a teenager he was referred to Prevent and considered himself an affiliate of Islamic State.
The Left really do need to develop an answer to this, rather than ignoring it and fingerpointing anyone who raises concerns about it as a closet racist, or you will find yourselves superseded in office by those who propose far more radical solutions - think forced deportations.
What is the solution? A good scheme to counter radicalisation (Prevent could be improved); good policing of radical groups (police funding has been cut); good mental health services (NHS is underfunded); good security for MPs; building a welcoming society that doesn't view all Muslims as dangerous (removing the whip from Islamophobic politicians is a good start).
Taylor & Soni (2017), in a review of Prevent in schools, suggest: "Radicalisation refers to views and not acts. Radicalised views are not acts of terrorism and are not in themselves a threat. The focus on identifying and intervening adopted by the CTSA and Prevent leads to problematic culture of surveillance which inhibits the creation of safe spaces in which to debate radical views. In fact, the lived experiences of Prevent in schools by the participants of these studies suggest it deters important critical discussion through fear and further alienates and villainises groups who may already feel alienated and villainised, threatening their sense of belonging and exacerbating the likelihood of creating intergroup conflict in our society. Instead, a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, Citation2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values could help reduce perceived tensions and create a greater sense of unity within our educational settings. Furthermore, programmes such as Tapestry can genuinely engage pupils with the issue of radicalisation and should be considered a priority for future government funding."
Jerome & Elwick (2017) write: "School responses to the Prevent agenda have tended to focus primarily on ‘safeguarding’ approaches, which essentially perceive some young people as being ‘at risk’ and potentially as presenting a risk to others. In this article, we consider evidence from secondary school students who experienced a curriculum project on terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. We argue that a curriculum response which addresses the acquisition of knowledge can build students’ critical capacity for engagement with radicalisation through enhanced political literacy and media literacy. We further argue this represents a genuinely educational response to Prevent, as opposed to a more restrictive securitised approach."
That all said, some of the people who raise concerns, over and over again while ignoring other threats of political violence or ills in society, who make up lies about immigration and crime, are racists (and often without a closet). Fingerpointing at racists is appropriate and part of how we combat radicalisation.
While the sentiments above are nice - “let’s be welcoming to everyone” - what do you do with people advocating racial/religious supremacism, violent homophobia etc.
For example some of the people I went to university with were quite clear that gay people “from their community” were, in their minds, needing punishment. There were a number of assaults on gay students from ethnic minorities - nearly certainly from this world view.
Should we engage them in a balanced, socially conscious debate? Or do as one student union security guard did and throw a large industrial dustbin at them? (He disturbed a group assault on an individual)
You should engage with them *at a younger age* in a balanced, socially conscious debate with “a focus on identifying areas of ‘overlapping consensus’ (Panjwani, 2016, p. 330) between the variety of viewpoints held by pupils in the UK and modern, liberal values”.
You don’t presume that the problems of homophobia are confined to any one community, recognising, for example, the pernicious influence of Andrew Tate. You tackle big tech to do something about the damages that can be done my social media.
And, as a last resort, you throw dustbins at them.
Age groups are an interesting thing here. I would not even know who Andrew Tate was had it not been for the BBC News wittering on about him.
I do wonder if in trying to warn people about him, whatever his influence or schtick it, they are just helping raise awareness of him.
Andrew Tate was around for bloody ages before becoming famous. He was a minor league Z-lister (kicked off celebrity big brother) with a small following on Twitter and the like, who peddled "courses" (£1200ish for a few private youtube videos) explaining how to pick up girls to a bunch of deeply misogynistic incels.
What changed things for him was the way TikTok propels certain content into everyone's feeds (and Instagram does the same now, following TikTok). Tate got good at posing with fast cars and being provocative, getting into online spats and saying controversial things that gamed the algorithms. Once he reached critical mass, there was a snowball effect. More or less meaning if you were a youth heavily engaged on TikTok or similar, he was everywhere, all the time.
Yet another example of how algorithms and social media have made the world a worse place. But made famous by the BBC news website he was not - the youth don't consume that kind of media.
Thanks for that. Interesting really how social media seems to work. I do not use TikTok.
He sounds a rather unpleasant fellow. Not really a role model. I wonder why he appeals to the people he appeals to.
He is under house arrest before a trial where he is accused of rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women. He remains under investigation with respect to charges of money laundering and trafficking of minors. Yes, he is unpleasant.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I think insurance is a risk based game - the insurers are making a bet with you about how likely something is to happen, you are covering yourself if said thing does happen.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
This is a big ethical risk with AI where business decisions may be made directly on race rather than proxy factors such as where you live. Machine learning is a black box effectively.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I think insurance is a risk based game - the insurers are making a bet with you about how likely something is to happen, you are covering yourself if said thing does happen.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
This is a big ethical risk with AI where business decisions may be made directly on race rather than proxy factors such as where you live. Machine learning is a black box effectively.
I thought current regulation (potentially under GDPR?) demands that any such decision is not made by an AI and can identify system and person/people who made that decision and why?
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I think insurance is a risk based game - the insurers are making a bet with you about how likely something is to happen, you are covering yourself if said thing does happen.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
This is a big ethical risk with AI where business decisions may be made directly on race rather than proxy factors such as where you live. Machine learning is a black box effectively.
I thought current regulation (potentially under GDPR?) demands that any such decision is not made by an AI and can identify system and person/people who made that decision and why?
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
I don't know if I've had a millionaire or billionaire's lifestyle. Probably not. All I can say is that, despite a few problems, I've genuinely had a good life so far, and enjoy it. A £150k vacation would probably bore me (even more) stupid.
Possibly. But a billionaire holiday is fun. No denying it
I particularly recommend a private flight in the Kafue National Park to go stay in the Busanga Plains at the end of the Dry
Scholz is apparently not going to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
Europe is sleepwalking to disaster.
The West is missing Boris Johnson's leadership on this.
I would hope that even those who loathe Johnson would agree with this.
While his prompt response to the invasion is one of the (few) things I give him wholehearted credit for, what difference would it now make ? Unless he were the majority leader in the US Congress, his leadership wouldn't change a thing right now. And that would be true of any UK PM (with the exception of a Corbyn).
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Sales of obsolete stock at knock down prices (near equivalent to giving it away) can be made by the President under "Excess Defence Articles" authority. Which is possibly how Israel has been supplied.
But there's an annual limit of $500m.
Stuff like 155mm shells, or air defence missiles won't fall into this category as they're very clearly not excess stock any longer.
Weapons that have to be replaced in the military inventory (under presidential drawdown authority) have to be accounted for at full replacement cost. Which needs Congressional funding.
All of the 4 million 155mm cluster rounds are excess stock as the US Army will never use them. Biden could EDA them to Ukraine via Germany but chooses not to. The current stalemate probably suits him just fine as he gets to indulge his core competency of pious hand-wringing without having to send tax payers' money to die in the mud during an election year.
Having said that the Ukrainians were expending 6,000 155mm rounds per day during the counter-"offensive" to very little effect so it's hard to say if more artillery ammunition would make any difference at this stage.
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
Only one of them will be on the ballot.
What do you mean? Sunak will be on the ballot in Richmond and Northallerton, Braverman in Fareham and Waterlooville, none of them will be on the ballot in in my new constituency...
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
Only one of them will be on the ballot.
What do you mean? Sunak will be on the ballot in Richmond and Northallerton, Braverman in Fareham and Waterlooville, none of them will be on the ballot in in my new constituency...
I used the term figuratively to mean that barring a miracle, when people decide who to vote for in the next GE, a vote for the Tories will mean another term of Sunak's Government and policies. Not another term of Truss's Government and policies. It's quite risible therefore to try and implicate either Truss or Mogg of all people in the coming drubbing. 'The grown ups' have had plenty of time 'back in the room' to sort things out and make a case for themselves as worthy of being re-elected. It's not like Labour aren't beatable.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I think insurance is a risk based game - the insurers are making a bet with you about how likely something is to happen, you are covering yourself if said thing does happen.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
This is a big ethical risk with AI where business decisions may be made directly on race rather than proxy factors such as where you live. Machine learning is a black box effectively.
I thought current regulation (potentially under GDPR?) demands that any such decision is not made by an AI and can identify system and person/people who made that decision and why?
You can only carry out this type of decision-making where the decision is: necessary for the entry into or performance of a contract; or authorised by domestic law applicable to the controller; or based on the individual’s explicit consent.
You must identify whether any of your processing falls under Article 22 and, if so, make sure that you: give individuals information about the processing; introduce simple ways for them to request human intervention or challenge a decision; carry out regular checks to make sure that your systems are working as intended.
So not a demand not to use AI in these things, but to be able to provide systems that act as checks on that.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
Gary Busey ?
"Then you don't know about Chief Ryback. He is an extreme psychopath. He hates officers. He hates America. This is the Captain's birthday. I do not want him ruining it. No one is to speak to him. No one is to let him out. If he tries to escape, shoot him right *here*!"
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
Only one of them will be on the ballot.
What do you mean? Sunak will be on the ballot in Richmond and Northallerton, Braverman in Fareham and Waterlooville, none of them will be on the ballot in in my new constituency...
I used the term figuratively to mean that barring a miracle, when people decide who to vote for in the next GE, a vote for the Tories will mean another term of Sunak's Government and policies. Not another term of Truss's Government and policies. It's quite risible therefore to try and implicate either Truss or Mogg of all people in the coming drubbing. 'The grown ups' have had plenty of time 'back in the room' to sort things out and make a case for themselves as worthy of being re-elected. It's not like Labour aren't beatable.
I think when people think how they will cast their vote, they will think back over the entire period since 2010. Different people are going to focus on different things, but it is obvious that the actions of Truss and Mogg will be part of some voters' assessment, as of course will the actions of Sunak and Hunt. It seems likely that Sunak will be most to the fore in people's minds, but it is bonkers to imagine people considering Truss to be entirely unrelated to the question of how they vote.
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
Only one of them will be on the ballot.
What do you mean? Sunak will be on the ballot in Richmond and Northallerton, Braverman in Fareham and Waterlooville, none of them will be on the ballot in in my new constituency...
I used the term figuratively to mean that barring a miracle, when people decide who to vote for in the next GE, a vote for the Tories will mean another term of Sunak's Government and policies. Not another term of Truss's Government and policies. It's quite risible therefore to try and implicate either Truss or Mogg of all people in the coming drubbing. 'The grown ups' have had plenty of time 'back in the room' to sort things out and make a case for themselves as worthy of being re-elected. It's not like Labour aren't beatable.
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
Only one of them will be on the ballot.
What do you mean? Sunak will be on the ballot in Richmond and Northallerton, Braverman in Fareham and Waterlooville, none of them will be on the ballot in in my new constituency...
I used the term figuratively to mean that barring a miracle, when people decide who to vote for in the next GE, a vote for the Tories will mean another term of Sunak's Government and policies. Not another term of Truss's Government and policies. It's quite risible therefore to try and implicate either Truss or Mogg of all people in the coming drubbing. 'The grown ups' have had plenty of time 'back in the room' to sort things out and make a case for themselves as worthy of being re-elected. It's not like Labour aren't beatable.
As a PB leftie can I point out that I am fairly comfortable with the treatment of Bangladeshi citizen Shamina Begum for one main reason. It has been found, by a legal system finds in favour of individuals in immigration cases on a daily basis, to be in order. Something that is pretty illiberal and hard such that it discomforts many PB Tories is in order.
Perhaps, rather than complaining about lefty lawyers all the time, the Home Office and the Tory right should reflect on how serious, determined politicians like Javid and May (in the case of Qatada) managed to do pretty illiberal things to protect the UK within the law, where as bloviating hardliners, who didn't see the need to work with rather than against the law, failed.
My default view is you make your bed and you lie on it. Begum could have avoided her banishment. But in principle I think a state should deal with their own bad guys and not push them elsewhere. Also @Malmesbury's related point. Human rights should mean dealing with transgression under the law with appropriate punishment.
I was interested in the mind set - the lawyers I chatted with had the noble (to them) aim of never allowing someone to be extradited to a country whose law they didn’t approve of. Maybe Sweden, I suppose.
They were also utterly opposed to the idea of treason convictions. To them, the idea of owing allegiance to a country was weird, ancient stuff that had no place in the modern world. International Liberalism Rules Ok….
They were a bit startled by my suggestion that they bore any responsibility for the actions of the government in response to their actions.
Here’s a thing. Young people like our own dear @148grss go on and on about climate change. It has been hammered into them, and fair enough - I concur it is a real issue, but I am not sure it is quite as existential as some claim. I believe humans will adapt, although it is, nonetheless, worth us taking measured steps to decrease C02 and it definitely worth us cleaning up the planet. I have seen FAR too much pollution, esp plastic, to be relaxed about that
However you never see young people, or indeed anyone, banging on and on and on about the dangers of AI
Yet these dangers are extremely real, and vastly more ominous than climate change
Let me introduce you to the concept of “P-doom” this is the probability that AGI, when it is achieved, will bring about a doomsday type event for humanity, perhaps total extinction, maybe just enslavement, but definitely something really really really bad. P-doom is expressed as a percentage. Here are the estimates of various experts, of P-Doom
<0.01% Yann LeCun one of three godfathers of AI, works at Meta (less likely than an asteroid)
10% Vitalik Buterin Ethereum founder (Specifically means AI takeover)
10% Geoff Hinton one of three godfathers of AI (chance of extinction in the next 30 years if unregulated)
14% Machine learning researchers (From 2022, median value is 5%)
15% Lina Khan head of FTC
10-20% Paul Christiano (Cumulative risks go to 50% when you get to human-level AI)
10-25% Dario Amodei CEO of Anthropic
20% Yoshua Bengio one of three godfathers of AI
20-30% Elon Musk CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, X
5-50% Emmet Shear Co-founder of Twitch, former short-term CEO of OpenAI
30% AI Safety Researchers (Mean from 44 AI safety researchers in 2021)
33% Scott Alexander Popular Internet blogger at Astral Codex Ten
35% Eli Lifland AI engineer (Estimate mean value, survey methodology may be flawed)
50% Holden Karnofsky Executive Director of Open Philanthropy
10-90% Jan Leike alignment lead at OpenAI
60% Zvi Mowshowitz AI researcher
70% Daniel Kokotajlo OpenAI researcher & forecaster
>80% Dan Hendrycks Head of Center for AI Safety
>99% Eliezer Yudkowsky Founder of MIRI
It is right now estimated we will achieve AGI in the next 1-10 years. That’s the consensus. Indeed it may already be here
Incidentally do not be reassured by the ‘likely as an asteroid’ prediction of Le Cun. He’s the guy who went on stage in Dubai and said AI text-to-video was impossible now, then got utterly humiliated when Sora was released literally two days later - a fortnight ago
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
The report I heard suggested it is not a direct racist penalty, its more that people from minorities tend to live in the shittier areas.
And why is that?
Probably cheaper and those from the minorities tend to be less well off?
Do you think that perpetuates a cycle of race based disadvantage? So if historically non-white people were paid less, they had to live in cheaper places, these places have high levels of crime (in part because these people are over policed in part because crime is typically a reaction to poor economic conditions) and that these then feed into each other? So that even if you can see a link that is more geographically based, that geography and race are deeply intertwined in our society in part due to racism.
I think insurance is a risk based game - the insurers are making a bet with you about how likely something is to happen, you are covering yourself if said thing does happen.
Its not up to insurers to eliminate structural racism in the UK. They are there to provide insurance.
A lot of insurance issues may seem unfair - a 17 year old kid who has been driving on private land for years, and is not a hot-headed boy racer will pay the premium that all the boy racers have generated. Likewise living in an area with higher premiums because of the area is tough, but thats how it works.
With so many things time will change matters. We are a vastly less racist country than we were even 30 years ago. We keep getting better and there is a long way to go. But I sense you are skirting towards a 'solution' of state intervention to make the insurance 'fair' for those in the poorer neighbourhoods.
This is a big ethical risk with AI where business decisions may be made directly on race rather than proxy factors such as where you live. Machine learning is a black box effectively.
I thought current regulation (potentially under GDPR?) demands that any such decision is not made by an AI and can identify system and person/people who made that decision and why?
There is EU regulation on this, but post Brexit. I'm not sure the UK position.
Update. It looks like the UK is adopting a piecemeal approach, leaving it up to regulators if any to impose any constraints on the use of AI. As insurance is a regulated business the relevant regulator could impose constraints
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
Boris has been divorced twice. I am not seeing that as absurdly successful with women.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
Boris has been divorced twice. I am not seeing that as absurdly successful with women.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
Do you enjoy them as much though after the first few? Great if you do. A chauffeur might drive a RR and one might envy him for doing so, but I doubt he thinks it is a luxury. I used to stay in a lot of posh hotels when working. My wife never did. So when we want to book something she wants the modern posh hotel and I want a cosy B&B or pub. Similarly with travel I enjoy it when doing little and hate it when I had to do a lot.
Might like to take your advice on a luxury holiday though.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
But left the world a worse place than he found it, which ultimately is all that will be remembered.
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
Sincere question - what is the most important thing in your life?
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
Do you enjoy them as much though after the first few? Great if you do. A chauffeur might drive a RR and one might envy him for doing so, but I doubt he thinks it is a luxury. I used to stay in a lot of posh hotels when working. My wife never did. So when we want to book something she wants the modern posh hotel and I want a cosy B&B or pub. Similarly with travel I enjoy it when doing little and hate it when I had to do a lot.
Might like to take your advice on a luxury holiday though.
I am afraid to reveal that Yes, you really do enjoy them, nearly always
That said there was a point when I realised i was doing so many - 15 a year or more - that I got blase and cynical. So I reined it in. Free travel should ALWAYS be fun - I think the optimum amount (for me) is about 6-10 trips a year, enough to always have something to look forward to, not so much you never unpack your suitcase from one trip to the next
Also it is best to mix them up, something domestic then something foreign, something luxe then something humble
Some of my best trips have been the most unexpected. “The five best unknown islands in the UK” turned out to be fantastic, when I thought it might be predictable
And a well timed self catering cottage in Suffolk or the Loire can easily be as good as a 5 star bender in the Maldives - and vice versa
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
It's not a straight question. Joe Biden got his administration into this position and the bill in question is not just about Ukraine.
So, how does Sunak bury the Anderson story? He's has not succeeded so far and Anderson does not want to help.
My inkling is that he doesn’t particularly want to bury it. The equation being that although the story itself causes discomfort for the conservatives, having this issue out in the wild - with some plausible deniability created by the suspension - will “play well in the red wall”.
It’s a tactic Boris and Cummings regularly deployed, sometimes successfully. I think it’s past its sell by date as we’ve also seen with the Rwanda policy, but I do get the sense CCHQ see this as a good place to go.
So Johnson’s support of Trump disqualifies him from the debate . There is no middle ground solution here . If Johnson cared so much about Ukraine he’d refrain from supporting someone so eager to throw the country under a bus .
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
Boris has been divorced twice. I am not seeing that as absurdly successful with women.
His backstory is akin to that of a feral tomcat impregnating casual conquest after casual conquest.
So Johnson’s support of Trump disqualifies him from the debate . There is no middle ground solution here . If Johnson cared so much about Ukraine he’d refrain from supporting someone so eager to throw the country under a bus .
There's a good chance that Trump will be President this time next year. What good would it do to turn his possible victory into a mandate for abandoning Ukraine?
Scholz is apparently not going to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
Europe is sleepwalking to disaster.
The West is missing Boris Johnson's leadership on this.
Lol. Boris Johnson is not a leader except to the moronically gullible.
The West is missing leadership on Ukraine, but it is not a vacuum that could be filled by the most ludicrous figure ever to have occupied No10 Downing Street
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
Sincere question - what is the most important thing in your life?
What a mad question
I suppose I want to be happy but I can only be happy if those I really love are happy (or at least not unhappy)
If one of my kids is seriously ill that overrides everything - as it does for every parent
Otherwise I want to honour my God, promote the wellbeing of humanity, see my country prosper, and also make lots of money doing a job I fortunately like. I care about England/UK at sport but this, TBH, is less paramount, and I have basically given up on English rugby, the useless wankers
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
It's not a straight question. Joe Biden got his administration into this position and the bill in question is not just about Ukraine.
Right, so Trump and Speaker Johnson are desperate to get weapons to Ukraine but Biden keeps stopping them by putting other things in the bill? Bullshit.
Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead remains at twenty-one points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 23% (-4) Lab 44% (-4) Lib Dem 11% (+3) Other 21% (+3) Fieldwork: 23rd - 26th February 2024 Sample: 1,490 GB adults (Changes from 16th - 19th February 2024)
So Johnson’s support of Trump disqualifies him from the debate . There is no middle ground solution here . If Johnson cared so much about Ukraine he’d refrain from supporting someone so eager to throw the country under a bus .
There are plenty of tories on here who support Ukraine and Sunak isn't doing shit for them.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
It's not a straight question. Joe Biden got his administration into this position and the bill in question is not just about Ukraine.
Right, so Trump and Speaker Johnson are desperate to get weapons to Ukraine but Biden keeps stopping them by putting other things in the bill? Bullshit.
Why are the Ukrainians much more cynical about the Biden administration than you seem to be?
Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead remains at twenty-one points in the latest results from Deltapoll. Con 23% (-4) Lab 44% (-4) Lib Dem 11% (+3) Other 21% (+3) Fieldwork: 23rd - 26th February 2024 Sample: 1,490 GB adults (Changes from 16th - 19th February 2024)
@Leon I'm fascinated by the finances of stuff I know nothing about. Do you get paid a shed load for each article or are there dozens more that you don't link to here? I think I get the novel writing. I didn't get the finances of travel writing until I asked you here and you provided the details - Thanks. But I don't get the article writing. I understand how a celebrity like Boris gets a lot for say a one weekly article because he is paid for his name and there are other less well known people knocking out columns daily, but can you make a living doing occasional stuff or do you have to combine it with other stuff. Typically what is your weekly output and are you doing this in parallel with writing another novel?
You’d have to ask the actual author
Tho given that his articles nearly always enter the top 5 “most read” - like that one - and often reach the top, I presume his editors are happy, hence they keep taking his ideas (often shamelessly stolen from here, let it be said)
I don't know the author to ask him but I believe you bump into him a lot so have probably exchanged thoughts.
Is this his bread and butter stuff while doing longer term projects or is this his main job? How does he split work between this and travel writing and other stuff? Is he writing another novel currently or even doing some other long term project? Does his travel writing (or anything else) appear elsewhere eg in promotional stuff?
Speaking as a humble gazette writer I can only guess. But my guess is he does this as a side-hustle along with larger projects that pay more - virtually all freelance writers have to do this. Vanishingly few can make a nice living from a single column with one paper/magazine
They are a dying breed. Boris will possibly be the last - no joke
However there is a prestige attached to writing for a famous mag like the spectator - more indeed than for most newspapers - and that prestige leads to higher profile and other work. So it is worth it for nearly any writer - hence the famous names they can recruit
Thanks @Leon . Appreciated. Give my regards to the author when you next see him.
I shall
I remember reading that when Ian Fleming was the foreign editor of the Sunday times he earned something like the equivalent of £400,000 yearly
My memory might be hazy - was it Fleming? Was it the ST? - but I recall it was an astonishing sum. Or was it le carre?
Anyway - big journalists used to make squillions - newspapers were so profitable. So the major hacks could easily hangout with the bankers and the politicians and they were all loaded
Long gone now
Interesting stuff, thanks.
Yes. I'm glad I asked. It is nice to get an insight into areas I am not familiar with.
Thing is, if you do write for a high profile journal like the spec then eventually you get asked onto tv and radio, which is all ££, and your name gets noticed by other editors, so there are more commissions, and also popular articles get syndicated (surprisingly lucrative at times)
So it’s positive feedback territory
Plus you will get offered freebies by PR and corporations who think you are “influential”. So eventually it adds up to a pleasant and well paid lifestyle
However it must be nice to be Boris and crank out any old fluff and get £400k a year or whatever - just for that
Look at him, though. Are you really envious ?
Not remotely. I have an extremely nice life
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
You do wonder, however, what is wrong with a world in which such an obvious twat whose self confidence way exceeds his self awareness can make such an easy living?
And that Boris is little better.
i guess it shows you can go an awful long way with just being charming, cunning, funny, deviously clever, and absurdly successful with women - which adds to your self confidence - and Boris has done ok as well
Sincere question - what is the most important thing in your life?
What a mad question
I suppose I want to be happy but I can only be happy if those I really love are happy (or at least not unhappy)
If one of my kids is seriously ill that overrides everything - as it does for every parent
Otherwise I want to honour my God, promote the wellbeing of humanity, see my country prosper, and also make lots of money doing a job I fortunately like. I care about England/UK at sport but this, TBH, is less paramount, and I have basically given up on English rugby, the useless wankers
Blimey, more stuff there than I expected. I have led a fairly dissolute life, but since becoming a father I can only say my son is the most important thing in my life, everything else has lost meaning in a way.
At least you didn't include 'being right on PB.com' on your list!
kamski said: "FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, . . . "
There's an exception that deserves more attention than it has gotten. Early in his first campaign for the presidency, Obama admitted that withdrawing from Iraq as he was advocating might lead to a genocide. (I was astonished at the time by his honesty.)
We elected him. He chose as a principal advisor one Susan Rice, most famous at the time for this: 'At the time of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Rice reportedly said, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice#Clinton_administration_(1993–2001)
(He also chose Samantha Power, who had criticized Rice in her book.)
We re-elected Obama and, in his second term, there was a genocide in Iraq that could have been prevented had he actually followed Bush policies. Since the victims were mostly Christians and Yazidis, that genocide didn't matter to most on the left.
If Obama, or Rice, has done anything to help the victims of his policy since leaving office, I missed it.
So Johnson’s support of Trump disqualifies him from the debate . There is no middle ground solution here . If Johnson cared so much about Ukraine he’d refrain from supporting someone so eager to throw the country under a bus .
There's a good chance that Trump will be President this time next year. What good would it do to turn his possible victory into a mandate for abandoning Ukraine?
Trump clearly will abandon Ukraine . It’s not rocket science . You’re either on the side of Ukraine or Trump there is absolutely no middle ground here . How do you have the Ukrainian colours in your avatar and yet continue this tacit support for Trump .
kamski said: "FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, . . . "
There's an exception that deserves more attention than it has gotten. Early in his first campaign for the presidency, Obama admitted that withdrawing from Iraq as he was advocating might lead to a genocide. (I was astonished at the time by his honesty.)
We elected him. He chose as a principal advisor one Susan Rice, most famous at the time for this: 'At the time of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Rice reportedly said, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice#Clinton_administration_(1993–2001)
(He also chose Samantha Power, who had criticized Rice in her book.)
We re-elected Obama and, in his second term, there was a genocide in Iraq that could have been prevented had he actually followed Bush policies. Since the victims were mostly Christians and Yazidis, that genocide didn't matter to most on the left.
If Obama, or Rice, has done anything to help the victims of his policy since leaving office, I missed it.
"Since the victims were mostly Christians and Yazidis, that genocide didn't matter to most on the left."
So Johnson’s support of Trump disqualifies him from the debate . There is no middle ground solution here . If Johnson cared so much about Ukraine he’d refrain from supporting someone so eager to throw the country under a bus .
There's a good chance that Trump will be President this time next year. What good would it do to turn his possible victory into a mandate for abandoning Ukraine?
Trump clearly will abandon Ukraine . It’s not rocket science . You’re either on the side of Ukraine or Trump there is absolutely no middle ground here . How do you have the Ukrainian colours in your avatar and yet continue this tacit support for Trump .
Do you think that I am influencing his chance of reelection?
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
It's not a straight question. Joe Biden got his administration into this position and the bill in question is not just about Ukraine.
Right, so Trump and Speaker Johnson are desperate to get weapons to Ukraine but Biden keeps stopping them by putting other things in the bill? Bullshit.
Why are the Ukrainians much more cynical about the Biden administration than you seem to be?
It's always whataboutery with you isn't it? When have I ever defended Biden?
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
It's not a straight question. Joe Biden got his administration into this position and the bill in question is not just about Ukraine.
Right, so Trump and Speaker Johnson are desperate to get weapons to Ukraine but Biden keeps stopping them by putting other things in the bill? Bullshit.
Why are the Ukrainians much more cynical about the Biden administration than you seem to be?
It's always whataboutery with you isn't it? When have I ever defended Biden?
You're doing it in this thread by placing sole blame for the inadequacy of US support on the Republicans.
There's a big difference too with 1992 and indeed 1997. There wasn't anyone in the then Cabinets who stood out as particularly divisive or incompetent. Recently we've had people like Braverman and Mogg in high offices of state, not to mention Truss as PM.
Hilarious that some are still desperately trying to pin Rishi and Hunt's complete failure on the likes of Mogg and Truss. Desperate.
I think there’s more than enough failure to go around all of them.
Only one of them will be on the ballot.
What do you mean? Sunak will be on the ballot in Richmond and Northallerton, Braverman in Fareham and Waterlooville, none of them will be on the ballot in in my new constituency...
I used the term figuratively to mean that barring a miracle, when people decide who to vote for in the next GE, a vote for the Tories will mean another term of Sunak's Government and policies. Not another term of Truss's Government and policies. It's quite risible therefore to try and implicate either Truss or Mogg of all people in the coming drubbing. 'The grown ups' have had plenty of time 'back in the room' to sort things out and make a case for themselves as worthy of being re-elected. It's not like Labour aren't beatable.
Indeed, and it will murder local government and it's various services. Those same services that are already reeling from the post 2010 austerity cuts. Having worked in local government for the last 27 years I am knowledgeable in this area.
Is Truss the apotheosis of the weird mental dislocation of those who are both Ukraine and Trump cheerleaders? If POTUS Trump II comes to pass, the train wreck of those absolutely contradictory positions colliding headlong may be one of the few entertainments available.
I refuse to believe that Truss is *really* so stupid as to believe that this *is* a coherent position to take, and therefore it is just (basically abhorrent) opportunism.
The Biden administration sat back and did virtually nothing to stop the initial invasion, except announce to the world that Ukraine would only last a few days which gave the likes of Germany the perfect excuse to do nothing as well.
Biden's presidency has been one foreign policy failure after another.
You can think the administration should have done more - and ought to have been less cautious in supplying arms early on - but it's sheer ignorance (or dishonesty) to say they did "virtually nothing".
They wagged their fingers at Putin and told him they would apply sanctions, but they were planning on Kyiv falling within days. Boris Johnson did more to stop that from happening than Biden did.
But Trump and MAGA Republicans are right now the ones stopping Ukraine getting the arms they need, wouldn't you agree?
No, that’s partisan propaganda. Biden was able to bypass Congress to give arms to Israel.
How is that partisan propaganda? I don't believe that you are unaware that Trumpite Speaker Mike Johnson has blocked the latest 90 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, for example. And AFAIK Biden has bypassed Congess to approve arms *sales* to Isreal - not to find billions down the back of the sofa to 'give' to Israel.
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Calling it a "$90 billion aid package for Ukraine" is itself propaganda. Most of it would be spent in the US so it's more of a pre-election jobs package, and it also includes a large amount of money for Palestine.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
So you can't bring yourself to admit what is surely an undisputed fact: Trump Republicans are the ones currently blocking supplies to Ukraine, or can you?
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Dec 2019 House Intelligence Committee report:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Partisan propaganda probably.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
It's not a straight question. Joe Biden got his administration into this position and the bill in question is not just about Ukraine.
Right, so Trump and Speaker Johnson are desperate to get weapons to Ukraine but Biden keeps stopping them by putting other things in the bill? Bullshit.
Why are the Ukrainians much more cynical about the Biden administration than you seem to be?
It's always whataboutery with you isn't it? When have I ever defended Biden?
You're doing it in this thread by placing sole blame for the inadequacy of US support on the Republicans.
Comments
I worked out the other day that I’ve led a billionaire’s life on a millionaire’s income
Eg some of the travel gigs I’ve done for the gazette have - on examination - turned out to be holidays that would cost a real person £50k-£150k. I think my most ridiculous trip (private helicopter etc) was definitely north of £150k
Can a millionaire afford a £150k vacation? No. You need to be worth a billion to shrug that off. And do it multiple times a year
However I do envy, a little, the way Boris has sold himself as a brand. Also I admire it. Has anyone ever monetarily weaponised mad blonde hair and a stammering speech pattern so successfully? No
30p went to the wrong school!
Maybe you really are just a troll.
Again, either you're unaware, or being disingenuous.
There's a strict annual cash limit on what a President can send overseas by executive order. The shipments to Israel have eaten into that. And it wouldn't now begin to supply Ukraine with what they need.
US law demand that drawdown from the Pentagon stockpile be replaced (which is where the high dollar amounts for semi-obsolete weapons come in) - and that requires Congressional approval.
Every day that Johnson delays a vote, possibly hundreds die at the front for lack of ammunition. What's beyond doubt is that Ukraine is losing territory because it's massively outgunned because of the delay.
Harpo Marx ?
I see what you mean.
Europe is sleepwalking to disaster.
But there's an annual limit of $500m.
Stuff like 155mm shells, or air defence missiles won't fall into this category as they're very clearly not excess stock any longer.
Weapons that have to be replaced in the military inventory (under presidential drawdown authority) have to be accounted for at full replacement cost. Which needs Congressional funding.
Biden allowed the lend-lease package for Ukraine to expire without being used once.
What would Johnson be adding at this moment?
https://x.com/SelsdonChapman/status/1761782164411060615?s=20
Possibly. But a billionaire holiday is fun. No denying it
I particularly recommend a private flight in the Kafue National Park to go stay in the Busanga Plains at the end of the Dry
Unless he were the majority leader in the US Congress, his leadership wouldn't change a thing right now. And that would be true of any UK PM (with the exception of a Corbyn).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/14/joe-biden-could-send-millions-of-artillery-shells-to-ukraine-for-free-tomorrow-and-its-perfectly-legal/
Having said that the Ukrainians were expending 6,000 155mm rounds per day during the counter-"offensive" to very little effect so it's hard to say if more artillery ammunition would make any difference at this stage.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/rights-related-to-automated-decision-making-including-profiling/
You can only carry out this type of decision-making where the decision is:
necessary for the entry into or performance of a contract; or
authorised by domestic law applicable to the controller; or
based on the individual’s explicit consent.
You must identify whether any of your processing falls under Article 22 and, if so, make sure that you:
give individuals information about the processing;
introduce simple ways for them to request human intervention or challenge a decision;
carry out regular checks to make sure that your systems are working as intended.
So not a demand not to use AI in these things, but to be able to provide systems that act as checks on that.
They were also utterly opposed to the idea of treason convictions. To them, the idea of owing allegiance to a country was weird, ancient stuff that had no place in the modern world. International Liberalism Rules Ok….
They were a bit startled by my suggestion that they bore any responsibility for the actions of the government in response to their actions.
However you never see young people, or indeed anyone, banging on and on and on about the dangers of AI
Yet these dangers are extremely real, and vastly more ominous than climate change
Let me introduce you to the concept of “P-doom” this is the probability that AGI, when it is achieved, will bring about a doomsday type event for humanity, perhaps total extinction, maybe just enslavement, but definitely something really really really bad. P-doom is expressed as a percentage. Here are the estimates of various experts, of P-Doom
<0.01%
Yann LeCun
one of three godfathers of AI, works at Meta
(less likely than an asteroid)
10%
Vitalik Buterin
Ethereum founder
(Specifically means AI takeover)
10%
Geoff Hinton
one of three godfathers of AI
(chance of extinction in the next 30 years if unregulated)
14%
Machine learning researchers
(From 2022, median value is 5%)
15%
Lina Khan
head of FTC
10-20%
Paul Christiano
(Cumulative risks go to 50% when you get to human-level AI)
10-25%
Dario Amodei
CEO of Anthropic
20%
Yoshua Bengio
one of three godfathers of AI
20-30%
Elon Musk
CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, X
5-50%
Emmet Shear
Co-founder of Twitch, former short-term CEO of OpenAI
30%
AI Safety Researchers
(Mean from 44 AI safety researchers in 2021)
33%
Scott Alexander
Popular Internet blogger at Astral Codex Ten
35%
Eli Lifland
AI engineer
(Estimate mean value, survey methodology may be flawed)
50%
Holden Karnofsky
Executive Director of Open Philanthropy
10-90%
Jan Leike
alignment lead at OpenAI
60%
Zvi Mowshowitz
AI researcher
70%
Daniel Kokotajlo
OpenAI researcher & forecaster
>80%
Dan Hendrycks
Head of Center for AI Safety
>99%
Eliezer Yudkowsky
Founder of MIRI
It is right now estimated we will achieve AGI in the next 1-10 years. That’s the consensus. Indeed it may already be here
Incidentally do not be reassured by the ‘likely as an asteroid’ prediction of Le Cun. He’s the guy who went on stage in Dubai and said AI text-to-video was impossible now, then got utterly humiliated when Sora was released literally two days later - a fortnight ago
And that Boris is little better.
Not much point discussing anything if you have your own alternative facts, though it's on-brand if you're going for the Trump look.
Update. It looks like the UK is adopting a piecemeal approach, leaving it up to regulators if any to impose any constraints on the use of AI. As insurance is a regulated business the relevant regulator could impose constraints
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into President Trump's domestic political opponent. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."
I wonder if William would like to address Trump's actions that led to that report.
Might like to take your advice on a luxury holiday though.
I mean, I haven't defended Biden. FWIW I think Obama pretty much continued Bush foreign policy, and Trump with a few exceptions (Iran deal) pretty much continued Obama foreign policy, and Biden has continued Trump foreign policy. Clearly wrt to Ukraine US/Western/EU policy has been fairly disastrous (unless you believe the current situation was unavoidable) under successive presidencies.
What annoys me is that he can't answer a straight question - whether he thinks Trump Republicans are currently blocking 'aid' (or whatever he prefers to call it I really don't care) to Ukraine.
That said there was a point when I realised i was doing so many - 15 a year or more - that I got blase and cynical. So I reined it in. Free travel should ALWAYS be fun - I think the optimum amount (for me) is about 6-10 trips a year, enough to always have something to look forward to, not so much you never unpack your suitcase from one trip to the next
Also it is best to mix them up, something domestic then something foreign, something luxe then something humble
Some of my best trips have been the most unexpected. “The five best unknown islands in the UK” turned out to be fantastic, when I thought it might be predictable
And a well timed self catering cottage in Suffolk or the Loire can easily be as good as a 5 star bender in the Maldives - and vice versa
It’s a tactic Boris and Cummings regularly deployed, sometimes successfully. I think it’s past its sell by date as we’ve also seen with the Rwanda policy, but I do get the sense CCHQ see this as a good place to go.
So Johnson’s support of Trump disqualifies him from the debate . There is no middle ground solution here . If Johnson cared so much about Ukraine he’d refrain from supporting someone so eager to throw the country under a bus .
The West is missing leadership on Ukraine, but it is not a vacuum that could be filled by the most ludicrous figure ever to have occupied No10 Downing Street
A modicum of leadership, as he did back in February 22.
Note he was in Ukraine for the second anniversary of the invasion a few days ago.
I suppose I want to be happy but I can only be happy if those I really love are happy (or at least not unhappy)
If one of my kids is seriously ill that overrides everything - as it does for every parent
Otherwise I want to honour my God, promote the wellbeing of humanity, see my country prosper, and also make lots of money doing a job I fortunately like. I care about England/UK at sport but this, TBH, is less paramount, and I have basically given up on English rugby, the useless wankers
Voting Intention🚨🚨
Labour lead remains at twenty-one points in the latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 23% (-4)
Lab 44% (-4)
Lib Dem 11% (+3)
Other 21% (+3)
Fieldwork: 23rd - 26th February 2024
Sample: 1,490 GB adults
(Changes from 16th - 19th February 2024)
https://x.com/deltapolluk/status/1762121206205927596?s=46
Bit of a freakish one. And the usual frustration at “other” being grouped together. I’d guess Ref 10, Green 5, SNP 4, others 2.
EDIT: actually 10, 5, 3, 3 (looked in the data tables)
NEW THREAD
At least you didn't include 'being right on PB.com' on your list!
There's an exception that deserves more attention than it has gotten. Early in his first campaign for the presidency, Obama admitted that withdrawing from Iraq as he was advocating might lead to a genocide. (I was astonished at the time by his honesty.)
We elected him. He chose as a principal advisor one Susan Rice, most famous at the time for this: 'At the time of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, Rice reportedly said, "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November election?'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice#Clinton_administration_(1993–2001)
(He also chose Samantha Power, who had criticized Rice in her book.)
We re-elected Obama and, in his second term, there was a genocide in Iraq that could have been prevented had he actually followed Bush policies. Since the victims were mostly Christians and Yazidis, that genocide didn't matter to most on the left.
If Obama, or Rice, has done anything to help the victims of his policy since leaving office, I missed it.
what? calling total bullshit on this.