There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).
Purcell was a fabulous composer. His facility for setting English words was extraordinary. I can listen to a song of his and think "There's nothing to this. This is just the obvious music for these words." Then it dawns on me what I've just said. I Attempt from Love's Sickness is an example of what I mean.
When Celia, the lady was learning on the spinnet to play.
Clever use of parts in a round, whole song changes meaning with the addition of other voices. Can;'t find a link on youtube at the moment.
There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).
I can appreciate that. My tastes have stretched over the years and as often as I go back to early composers like Bach or Monteverdi, I am equally drawn to modern minimalists like Part, Adams and Glass.
And it all started with Mozart for me - and just spread.
Mozart wrote some great music no doubt, but was also a terrible smart-arse, and lazy, churning out reams of mannered, clichéd, superficial stuff. Too much sweetness and light. I might be influenced by having had to plough through Eine Kleine umpteen times at school.
As I get older, I immerse myself in the more romantic music. Rachmaninov, Delius, even the film music of Bernard Herrmann. (incidentally George Martin was inspired to incorporate the strings on Eleanor Rigby in homage to Herrmann)
Jazz piano can take me there too. Art Tatum, for his impossible virtuosity, humour and triumph over adversity. Bill Evans for his "love letters written from some prison of the heart."
And Ben Webster, for his smoky whisperings through his tenor sax on a slow ballad...
Saxophone - that makes me think of the wonderful Jan Gabarek and his work with the Hilliard Ensemble on recordings such as Officium. The clash between the two sound worlds is absolutely intoxicating!
There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).
I can appreciate that. My tastes have stretched over the years and as often as I go back to early composers like Bach or Monteverdi, I am equally drawn to modern minimalists like Part, Adams and Glass.
And it all started with Mozart for me - and just spread.
Mozart wrote some great music no doubt, but was also a terrible smart-arse, and lazy, churning out reams of mannered, clichéd, superficial stuff. Too much sweetness and light. I might be influenced by having had to plough through Eine Kleine umpteen times at school.
As I get older, I immerse myself in the more romantic music. Rachmaninov, Delius, even the film music of Bernard Herrmann. (incidentally George Martin was inspired to incorporate the strings on Eleanor Rigby in homage to Herrmann)
Jazz piano can take me there too. Art Tatum, for his impossible virtuosity, humour and triumph over adversity. Bill Evans for his "love letters written from some prison of the heart."
And Ben Webster, for his smoky whisperings through his tenor sax on a slow ballad...
Chopin is often viewed in that way but when you hear him played well you realise what an outstanding composer he was. There is nothing twee about Chopin. My piano teacher, himself a professional pianist, is a great Chopin interpreter. He believes him to be one of the greats and someone who is not recognised as much as he might be because he did not compose symphonies.
I think the other point about music is that once you get into it, you can find all types of music interesting and enjoyable. I have very eclectic tastes. And the second thing is that if you play, however badly, it hugely increases your understanding and enjoyment of music.
Don't know about "on point"...checking out his tw@tter feed, repetitive and extremely angry more like. Think if JJ goes on much longer he will give himself a heart attack.
@paulwaugh: GMB's Kenny adds union will call conference of 50 sites "We're going to ask those ppl about Lab party effectively shutting down their jobs"
There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).
I can appreciate that. My tastes have stretched over the years and as often as I go back to early composers like Bach or Monteverdi, I am equally drawn to modern minimalists like Part, Adams and Glass.
And it all started with Mozart for me - and just spread.
Mozart wrote some great music no doubt, but was also a terrible smart-arse, and lazy, churning out reams of mannered, clichéd, superficial stuff. Too much sweetness and light. I might be influenced by having had to plough through Eine Kleine umpteen times at school.
As I get older, I immerse myself in the more romantic music. Rachmaninov, Delius, even the film music of Bernard Herrmann. (incidentally George Martin was inspired to incorporate the strings on Eleanor Rigby in homage to Herrmann)
Jazz piano can take me there too. Art Tatum, for his impossible virtuosity, humour and triumph over adversity. Bill Evans for his "love letters written from some prison of the heart."
And Ben Webster, for his smoky whisperings through his tenor sax on a slow ballad...
Very much with you on Bill Evans. I don't know Art Tatum. I will have a listen.
I agree that Mozart did write a lot of inconsequential music but then he was prolific and wrote a lot of great music too. I think there's a case for him as the GOAT:
* He produced seriously great works in many different forms - chamber music, symphonies, concerti, opera etc * He may have been the greatest musical dramatist of all time. Only Wagner can seriously compete with him
I would still give the prize to Bach though.
Eine Kleine Nachtmusik was my favourite thing when I was a very small child. My parents used to play it to me when I was 2 or 3. Perhaps it was good at shutting me up.
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.
Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.
It's not reducing union funding, though is it? It's saying that union members have to make a positive choice to fund the Labour party, which seems to me to be a good thing. The problem only arises if members choose not to do so. And if that's the case, why should a political party receive money from people who have not chosen to spend their money in that way?
I would also place upper financial limits on what individuals and companies can contribute and would have some similar positive opt in for shareholders of companies. No-one should be made to fund a political party without their express consent.
Up to a point I agree, but there is an underlying issue. It's desirable - I think very few would disagree - that the main parties have broadly comparable financial resources, so that elections are not decided simply by one side swamping the other with money. If X can send everyone 5 colour leaflets and do detailed phone canvassing of everyone in every marginal seat, and Y can only afford two leaflets delivered by hand and knock on doors, that's not good for democracy. Nor is it ideal if only one side can employ enough researchers to analyse potential policy.
Now, historically we have a very British fudge on this. The Tories get money largely from the City and a few wealthy individuals. Labour gets money largely from the unions and a few wealthy individuals, plus (when in Opposition) help in research with the Short money. Neither arrangement is beyond criticism, frankly, but in the absence of public consent for party funding by taxpayers it's the only thing that works. The Tories are now quite deliberately wrecking the basis for Labour funding, while doing nothing about their their own funding or the gaping holes in spending limits. The outcome, if not modified, will be a glaringly tilted playing field, and that seems undesirable whatever one thinks of the parties that are currently on the pitch. Note that Short money was introduced by Labour in power to address the problem of the Opposition needing adequate funding for research, so on this occasion it can't be said that both sides are guilty of rigging the system.
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
won't happen, but if 200 resigned the whip but did not form another party, would that make the SNP the loyal opposition?
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
Cameron has announced an extension of his national citizen service programme. He did so in a well-trailed and substantial speech on life chances which also confirmed plans to rebuild 100 “sink estates”, to promote parenting classes, and to improve perinatal mental health services, and included new plans for a mentoring programme for under-performing teenagers. (See 11.29am, 12.32pm and 12.39pm.) I will post more from the speech when I have seen the full text.
Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.
Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.
Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).
Gotham really is a fantastic show.
And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
Person of Interest is a rare show that has only gotten better in each season - it felt like a pretty standard procedural type show when it began (not that I dislike procedural, quite the opposite), with a gimmick it didn't seem to be exploring the implications of. But I was quite wrong - it knew just how creepy and significant its implications were, and has transformed into something quite different to what people may have expected. I hope they don't blow it in what should be its final season, as the slow progression to where it is now, almost philosophical and with a mythological bent, has been very impressive, and I can see several scenarios for how it might wrap up which would be stellar.
Don't know about "on point"...checking out his tw@tter feed, repetitive and extremely angry more like. Think if JJ goes on much longer he will give himself a heart attack.
Saxophone - that makes me think of the wonderful Jan Gabarek and his work with the Hilliard Ensemble on recordings such as Officium. The clash between the two sound worlds is absolutely intoxicating!
It's desirable - I think very few would disagree - that the main parties have broadly comparable financial resources, so that elections are not decided simply by one side swamping the other with money.
Actually, I would fundamentally disagree. A bat-shit crazy Corbynista party - one that would kill off our industrial and financial infrastructure - should not have some Westminster-mandated pile of cash equal to that of a much popular centrist Tory party that was building on years of good work to rebalance the economy, raise employment, reduce taxes on the poorest and working to make life better for all, not just the favoured Islington few.
If Labour can only continue to exist to spread its pernicious nastiness by playing with a marked deck, then it is time it died. If Labour cannot get funds from industry - the funds it had no problem getting in the Blair era - then that tells you more about Labour than about industry.
I've just rewatched Castle to S6 and it's great fluff. S7 has been iffy so far, but will persevere. Greys Anatomy S12 is poor. Too many long standing cast holes now.
In middle of old Criminal Minds, they're really quite clever. Much preferred Agent Gideon to Rossi period.
Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.
Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.
Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).
Gotham really is a fantastic show.
And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
Person of Interest is a rare show that has only gotten better in each season - it felt like a pretty standard procedural type show when it began (not that I dislike procedural, quite the opposite), with a gimmick it didn't seem to be exploring the implications of. But I was quite wrong - it knew just how creepy and significant its implications were, and has transformed into something quite different to what people may have expected. I hope they don't blow it in what should be its final season, as the slow progression to where it is now, almost philosophical and with a mythological bent, has been very impressive, and I can see several scenarios for how it might wrap up which would be stellar.
There's a curious feature regarding taste in music, which it how it develops with age. In my case it's been a gradual move back from the Romantics to a much greater appreciation of the Baroque, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Of course I still love Brahms, Richard Strauss, Wagner, Schumann and the whole 19th century gang, and of course Mozart is the ultimate universal composer, and of course Bach is incomparable, but I'm finding myself increasingly drawn to Handel, Purcell, Monteverdi. Something to do with liking calmer and less tumultuous music as one ages (or matures?).
I can appreciate that. My tastes have stretched over the years and as often as I go back to early composers like Bach or Monteverdi, I am equally drawn to modern minimalists like Part, Adams and Glass.
And it all started with Mozart for me - and just spread.
Mozart wrote some great music no doubt, but was also a terrible smart-arse, and lazy, churning out reams of mannered, clichéd, superficial stuff. Too much sweetness and light. I might be influenced by having had to plough through Eine Kleine umpteen times at school.
As I get older, I immerse myself in the more romantic music. Rachmaninov, Delius, even the film music of Bernard Herrmann. (incidentally George Martin was inspired to incorporate the strings on Eleanor Rigby in homage to Herrmann)
Jazz piano can take me there too. Art Tatum, for his impossible virtuosity, humour and triumph over adversity. Bill Evans for his "love letters written from some prison of the heart."
And Ben Webster, for his smoky whisperings through his tenor sax on a slow ballad...
Very much with you on Bill Evans. I don't know Art Tatum. I will have a listen.
Be careful. Many listened and gave up piano, or even music altogether. Oscar Peterson cried and gave up for three months...
But when I need cheering up, I listen to Art. My God, he was blind, and could do that... What have I got to worry about? one of his slower renditions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbOHOHWjE4
Saxophone - that makes me think of the wonderful Jan Gabarek and his work with the Hilliard Ensemble on recordings such as Officium. The clash between the two sound worlds is absolutely intoxicating!
Yes! I was given that for Christmas. Stunning.
It is a brilliant recording - evocative, unsettling and musically very clever.
It's desirable - I think very few would disagree - that the main parties have broadly comparable financial resources, so that elections are not decided simply by one side swamping the other with money. If X can send everyone 5 colour leaflets and do detailed phone canvassing of everyone in every marginal seat, and Y can only afford two leaflets delivered by hand and knock on doors, that's not good for democracy.
Now, historically we have a very British fudge on this. The Tories get money largely from the City and a few wealthy individuals. Labour gets money largely from the unions and a few wealthy individuals, plus (when in Opposition) help in research with the Short money. Neither arrangement is beyond criticism, frankly, but in the absence of public consent for party funding by taxpayers it's the only thing that works. The Tories are now quite deliberately wrecking the basis for Labour funding, while doing nothing about their their own funding or the gaping holes in spending limits. The outcome, if not modified, will be a glaringly tilted playing field, and that seems undesirable whatever one thinks of the parties that are currently on the pitch. Note that Short money was introduced by Labour in power to address the problem of the Opposition needing adequate funding for research, so on this occasion it can't be said that both sides are guilty of rigging the system.
I would welcome upper limits on what can be spent and also, as I said, having similar opt in measures for those who fund parties other than Labour. Perhaps Labour might have addressed this issue when it was in power? The Tories are now in power and tilting the rules in their favour. Not good, I agree.
But Labour appear to me to be complaining that they will be deprived of money because no-one will support them. Er, oh dear, well boo hoo, I'm afraid. The problem is the lack of support not the change in rules.
I don't know what the issue with Short money is, I'm afraid, so won't comment on that.
But I do think that parties complaining that people won't fund them and therefore they should have money from those same people get no sympathy from me. If a political party cannot persuade people to part with their cash, then no matter how long or illustrious its history, it has no right to survival.
I am totally against taxpayer funding for political parties - beyond some small sum for official roles, as per Short money. Parties should have to rely on ordinary taxpayers - not very rich people or organisations - precisely because it is one way of keeping them in touch with what ordinary taxpayers think. If you're insulated from the people, if you think yourself entitled to money regardless, this is not good for politics or democracy or people's trust in politicians.
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
"Corbyn has refused to rule out authorising drone strikes to kill jihadis."
But he still hasn't said he would use them either. He's still soft on terrorism, soft on the causes of terrorism.
Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.
Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.
It's not reducing union funding, though is it? It's saying that union members have to make a positive choice to fund the Labour party, which seems to me to be a good thing. The problem only arises if members choose not to do so. And if that's the case, why should a political party receive money from people who have not chosen to spend their money in that way?
I would also place upper financial limits on what individuals and companies can contribute and would have some similar positive opt in for shareholders of companies. No-one should be made to fund a political party without their express consent.
Up to a point I agree, but there is an underlying issue. It's desirable - I think very few would disagree - that the main parties have broadly comparable financial resources, so that elections are not decided simply by one side swamping the other with money. If X can send everyone 5 colour leaflets and do detailed phone canvassing of everyone in every marginal seat, and Y can only afford two leaflets delivered by hand and knock on doors, that's not good for democracy. Nor is it ideal if only one side can employ enough researchers to analyse potential policy.
Now, historically we have a very British fudge on this. The Tories get money largely from the City and a few wealthy individuals. Labour gets money largely from the unions and a few wealthy individuals, plus (when in Opposition) help in research with the Short money. Neither arrangement is beyond criticism, frankly, but in the absence of public consent for party funding by taxpayers it's the only thing that works. The Tories are now quite deliberately wrecking the basis for Labour funding, while doing nothing about their their own funding or the gaping holes in spending limits. The outcome, if not modified, will be a glaringly tilted playing field, and that seems undesirable whatever one thinks of the parties that are currently on the pitch. Note that Short money was introduced by Labour in power to address the problem of the Opposition needing adequate funding for research, so on this occasion it can't be said that both sides are guilty of rigging the system.
There's nothing to stop members making individual donations.
If Labour can't persuade them to do so, perhaps it might be an idea to ask yourself why, rather than blaming others for funding difficulties.
Don't know about "on point"...checking out his tw@tter feed, repetitive and extremely angry more like. Think if JJ goes on much longer he will give himself a heart attack.
To be fair, he has a lot to be angry about
True, the poor little lamb. It's his worst nightmare every day.
Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.
Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.
It's not reducing union funding, though is it? It's saying that union members have to make a positive choice to fund the Labour party, which seems to me to be a good thing. The problem only arises if members choose not to do so. And if that's the case, why should a political party receive money from people who have not chosen to spend their money in that way?
I would also place upper financial limits on what individuals and companies can contribute and would have some similar positive opt in for shareholders of companies. No-one should be made to fund a political party without their express consent.
Now, historically we have a very British fudge on this. The Tories get money largely from the City and a few wealthy individuals. Labour gets money largely from the unions and a few wealthy individuals, plus (when in Opposition) help in research with the Short money. Neither arrangement is beyond criticism, frankly, but in the absence of public consent for party funding by taxpayers it's the only thing that works. The Tories are now quite deliberately wrecking the basis for Labour funding, while doing nothing about their their own funding or the gaping holes in spending limits. The outcome, if not modified, will be a glaringly tilted playing field, and that seems undesirable whatever one thinks of the parties that are currently on the pitch. Note that Short money was introduced by Labour in power to address the problem of the Opposition needing adequate funding for research, so on this occasion it can't be said that both sides are guilty of rigging the system.
I'm conflicted. The Tories are doing this to harm Labour, no question, but if people won't give Labour money that's not the Tories' fault, as people can still do that if they want. I'm not aware of how gaping the holes in spending limits is, but if they are big they do need addressing, as while I don't think it unreasonable to implement this specific change, and Labour cannot ask for essentially a handicap by getting more money to compensate for people not giving it to them, the impact of that money on elections needs to be carefully handled, hence my disquiet. I really don't like the idea of party funding by the state, but our traditional British fudge, in its latest recipe, is not perfect.
Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.
Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.
It's not reducing union funding, though is it? It's saying that union members have to make a positive choice to fund the Labour party, which seems to me to be a good thing. The problem only arises if members choose not to do so. And if that's the case, why should a political party receive money from people who have not chosen to spend their money in that way?
I would also place upper financial limits on what individuals and companies can contribute and would have some similar positive opt in for shareholders of companies. No-one should be made to fund a political party without their express consent.
I agree that it isn't specifically reducing their funding, but the effect of the new rules will reduce Labour's funding by the unions. My issue is that matters pertaining to party funding should be done on a cross party basis and this seems to be being rammed through unilaterally by the Tories. It leaves Tory funding arrangements under severe threat should Labour ever get a majority (or SNP coalition) in Parliament. The government are setting a poor precedent.
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
won't happen, but if 200 resigned the whip but did not form another party, would that make the SNP the loyal opposition?
I'm no constitutional expert, but it was suggested on here earlier that the role of the official Opposition is in the gift of the Speaker. I'd think that if the Labour grouping under Corbyn can't shadow the government then someone else would be invited to do so. A right bloody mess in any case!
Johny Marr bought me a pint on New Years Eve at the Bleeding Wolf in Hale Manchester on New Years Eve- I think in 1985. He was just a really nice bloke- and enjoyed a chat.
But; re the Smiths- Morrissey's vocals and lyrics are quite wonderful too. Though you are right- Marr's riffs are stunning.
I went to a Peter Hook doing the entire Joy Division back catalogue at a gig in December in Florence and happily moshed away for a few hours- you're never too old- and nearly caught his t- shirt at the end. He aimed it right at me, but some Italian grabbed it out of my hands.
I love to listen to Bach's Six Suites on Sunday mornings too.
@Plato - Never seen the appeal of miserable tunes. Leonard Cohen??? ]]
Or Morrissey – every time I hear him I think ‘stop whining about it you miserable git and jump’
Ah yes, but Johnny Marr's guitar playing and composing is awesome - and that's why you listen to the Smiths (well, why I do).
I like both Bowie - RIP - and Bach. Bach wrote some of the sublimest music there is. Playing his piano music (though he wrote for the harpsichord, of course) is one of the great pleasures of life.
Bowie was the soundtrack to my growing up years. I remember seeing Roeg's "The Man who Fell to Earth" at the late night film club in Bristol.... Happy days.
And Bohemian Rhapsody is a great song.
I saw Marr at Leeds a few years back, and he played some old Smiths stuff. He can sing better than Morrisey too...
Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.
Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.
Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).
Gotham really is a fantastic show.
And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
Person of Interest is a rare show that has only gotten better in each season - it felt like a pretty standard procedural type show when it began (not that I dislike procedural, quite the opposite), with a gimmick it didn't seem to be exploring the implications of. But I was quite wrong - it knew just how creepy and significant its implications were, and has transformed into something quite different to what people may have expected. I hope they don't blow it in what should be its final season, as the slow progression to where it is now, almost philosophical and with a mythological bent, has been very impressive, and I can see several scenarios for how it might wrap up which would be stellar.
The last two seasons got pretty dark, with unremitting setbacks and just avoiding falling over the precipice every episode. Good for a while, but too much when continued for two entire seasons. The team has to start winning against the rogue machine, or what remains of the show's audience will disappear. I strongly doubt it will be renewed beyond this season.
I have just discovered and binge watched 4 seasons of Longmire, if anyone is interested in a more character and dialogue based procedural than is the norm. I was addicted from the first episode.
Now, historically we have a very British fudge on this. The Tories get money largely from the City and a few wealthy individuals. Labour gets money largely from the unions and a few wealthy individuals, plus (when in Opposition) help in research with the Short money. Neither arrangement is beyond criticism, frankly, but in the absence of public consent for party funding by taxpayers it's the only thing that works. The Tories are now quite deliberately wrecking the basis for Labour funding, while doing nothing about their their own funding or the gaping holes in spending limits. The outcome, if not modified, will be a glaringly tilted playing field, and that seems undesirable whatever one thinks of the parties that are currently on the pitch. Note that Short money was introduced by Labour in power to address the problem of the Opposition needing adequate funding for research, so on this occasion it can't be said that both sides are guilty of rigging the system.
My preference is for non-partisan Trades Unions on the German model, which seems to work there. And my preferred way of getting there is through capping donations from single individuals / organisations (£1k or 5k max?), and making Trades Unions more representative of their members (rather than the more extreme people / cliques who run them).
A secondbest alternative would be to permit Union members to affiliate to any legal political party.
The important stat here is that the membership of large Trade Unions is not wholly Labour supporting, therefore they are undemocratic, and the claim to "represent all out members" is quoestionable. Was it Unite or Unison that had fewer than half its members vote Lab in 2010 and 2015?
I think opt-in affiliation is an obviously correct move, but does needs to be balanced by reforms to company donations.
The Tebbit reforms were howled at at the time but have proven to be remarkably prescient. Who would want to go back to mass meetings and shows of hands?
I think on this one there is something of an historic opportunity here if the Tories grasp it. Labour has a lot of members to pick up the slack, so let us move it towards individual funding of politics. Tories have fewer members, so if it is done carefully the PR should work too.
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
"Corbyn has refused to rule out authorising drone strikes to kill jihadis."
But he still hasn't said he would use them either. He's still soft on terrorism, soft on the causes of terrorism.
A good test in these sorts of situations is to see what someone answers when they're thrown the question, before they've had a chance to think and the spinners and others have had their say, what their instinctive default reaction is. And we know what Corbyn's was. He simply was unable clearly and unequivocally say that his first, only and automatic priority - should homicidal maniacs threaten the people of this country - would be to take whatever steps were needed to protect people, up to and including shooting said maniacs dead in the heat of the moment. Sometimes a clear statement of the obvious is needed not a load of nuance about the finer points of international law and/or the law on self-defence and the rest. And if someone is unable to make such a clear statement it tells people a lot - something quite important in fact - about that person.
Corbyn can do as many "refuse to rule out" statements as he likes now. But he was defined by his initial responses - and his earlier statements about 9/11 and 7/7 and what his associates (yes, you, Ken and Seamus) are also now saying and have said.
Miss Plato, I really like it too. Unashamedly daft cocking about can work very well.
Let's leave inconspicuously. Through the window.
Speaking of which, Gotham's back on tonight on Channel 5 (unsure of the time).
Gotham really is a fantastic show.
And even better it really, really annoys the fanbois and fangrrls who want something completely different (which would not be nearly as good).
I got into it quite late, tbh, and frankly I think as a show it would work just fine without the Bruce Wayne stuff (even though that's the reason for its existence), but I was pleasantly surprised, and my overwhelming reaction was 'who know Jim Gordon kicked so much ass?'
Person of Interest is a rare show that has only gotten better in each season - it felt like a pretty standard procedural type show when it began (not that I dislike procedural, quite the opposite), with a gimmick it didn't seem to be exploring the implications of. But I was quite wrong - it knew just how creepy and significant its implications were, and has transformed into something quite different to what people may have expected. I hope they don't blow it in what should be its final season, as the slow progression to where it is now, almost philosophical and with a mythological bent, has been very impressive, and I can see several scenarios for how it might wrap up which would be stellar.
The last two seasons got pretty dark, with unremitting setbacks and just avoiding falling over the precipice every episode. Good for a while, but too much when continued for two entire seasons. The team has to start winning against the rogue machine, or what remains of the show's audience will disappear. I strongly doubt it will be renewed beyond this season.
I have just discovered and binge watched 4 seasons of Longmire, if anyone is interested in a more character and dialogue based procedural than is the norm. I was addicted from the first episode.
But but but...The GMB Union are saying tens of thousands of jobs will go if Trident is taken down...we all know from our SNP posters that it is really just a few hundred..
Got the DP on, I'm not convinced that reducing union funding and short money for Labour is a good thing. However, surely Labour can get in touch with all of their new members and get them to set up a £1 per months direct debit. Even of only half sign up then it will cover a lot of the funding gap that will be come from these changes.
Oh right, these new members are all talk no trousers.
It's not reducing union funding, though is it? It's saying that union members have to make a positive choice to fund the Labour party, which seems to me to be a good thing. The problem only arises if members choose not to do so. And if that's the case, why should a political party receive money from people who have not chosen to spend their money in that way?
I would also place upper financial limits on what individuals and companies can contribute and would have some similar positive opt in for shareholders of companies. No-one should be made to fund a political party without their express consent.
I agree that it isn't specifically reducing their funding, but the effect of the new rules will reduce Labour's funding by the unions. My issue is that matters pertaining to party funding should be done on a cross party basis and this seems to be being rammed through unilaterally by the Tories. It leaves Tory funding arrangements under severe threat should Labour ever get a majority (or SNP coalition) in Parliament. The government are setting a poor precedent.
Yes - that is a risk. I agree. Presumably the Tory calculation is that this makes it less likely that Labour will or can win. But hubris is never attractive.
Cross-party consensus should be better save for the risk - quite a high risk, IMO - that the parties all gang up and agree not to screw each other over but to screw us instead.
Tonight's PLP should elect a leader for the Commons MPs tonight.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Probably. He's waited his life for this opportunity, along with his fellow travellers on the hard Left. They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party. I'll believe it when I see it though.
won't happen, but if 200 resigned the whip but did not form another party, would that make the SNP the loyal opposition?
I'm no constitutional expert, but it was suggested on here earlier that the role of the official Opposition is in the gift of the Speaker. I'd think that if the Labour grouping under Corbyn can't shadow the government then someone else would be invited to do so. A right bloody mess in any case!
Given the fluid nature of our constitution, a solution would be found - even though we don't have any precedents on which base it.
For me the issue is one of whether the MP is a representative of their constituents or a representative of their party. The answer, to my mind, is clearly the former - even though the MP was elected, in large part, because of their party affiliation.
So if 200 Labour MPs resigned the Labour whip and sat as independents without any party affiliation (and without any attempt to for a new Independent bloc) then the Commons authorities would have to look at the distribution of MPs on a party-by-party basis and look at which was the largest group and thus the one entitled to be given the role of Official Opposition.
If we let the 200 resignation scenario play out, that would leave Labour on 32 seats and the SNP on 54 - so the SNP would have a clear claim to become the Official Opposition.
In broader constitutional terms, I think it would be deeply problematic to have the Official Opposition party being one that only has members representing constituencies in a small part of the UK. Having a regional party as the main Opposition is not ideal - but if the numbers are such then that is the logical outcome.
I can't see the 200 resignation scenario happening, but it is interesting to wonder what might happen if it did!
I agree that it isn't specifically reducing their funding, but the effect of the new rules will reduce Labour's funding by the unions. My issue is that matters pertaining to party funding should be done on a cross party basis and this seems to be being rammed through unilaterally by the Tories. It leaves Tory funding arrangements under severe threat should Labour ever get a majority (or SNP coalition) in Parliament. The government are setting a poor precedent.
I agree. And there's an obvious counter-punch from Labour: parties to depend on individual donations only, size of donation capped at some low figure. Now you have to be a mass-membership party to have money. It's quite easy to make a populist case for this.
But this leads onto the question, why does Labour have a much larger membership than the Tories but fewer voters?
I'm conflicted. The Tories are doing this to harm Labour, no question, but if people won't give Labour money that's not the Tories' fault, as people can still do that if they want. I'm not aware of how gaping the holes in spending limits is, but if they are big they do need addressing, as while I don't think it unreasonable to implement this specific change, and Labour cannot ask for essentially a handicap by getting more money to compensate for people not giving it to them, the impact of that money on elections needs to be carefully handled, hence my disquiet. I really don't like the idea of party funding by the state, but our traditional British fudge, in its latest recipe, is not perfect.
Well, in general terms a party perceived as mainly benefiting the wealthy will have a funding advantage over a party perceived as mainly benefiting lower-income people, and ideally there should be arrangements that ensure that people get a good presentation of a selection of views to choose from.
The constituency spending limits are quite tight, but they don't really work. The specific loophole is, among others, that there are no effective controls on how much you can spend on marginal seats if your operation is based outside - for example, you can spend £N million on telephoning voters in marginals right up to polling day, and not one penny of it will be counted in the constituency spending limit, unless you specifically refer to the candidate or constituency. Similarly, Mr Cameron can write a four-page letter to every floating voter in marginals, varying with the interests and concerns shown by the £N million phoning, and so long as he doesn't mention the constituency or candidate it won't count. You can also have billboard advertising near the marginals, fund battle buses to visit them every week, etc., and between elections you can saturate the seats with stuff almost as much as you like. People do get resistant to leaflets, but if you've told a canvasser that you are interested in taxes and party X then writes to you about taxes 4 times a year for years while Y can't afford to, you may well feel that X really cares about your issue and Y doesn't.
In principle, I think that effective spending limits are the way to go - I don't much care if the Tories have an extra £50 million to spend on research or whatever, so long as it doesn't tilt the balance in voter-facing campaigns. But in reality I'm not sure it's possible to draw up rules that human ingenuity will not get around, so having a much tighter national spending limit (it's currently something mad like £15 million a year) may be the way to go. Another option might be the Danish one of having much-expanded TV time for all the parties so they can put their case in detail (the Danes don't give more time to bigger parties, by the way, so LibDems, Greens and UKIP would love it), though a Campaign for More PPBs will not be universally popular.
Well, in general terms a party perceived as mainly benefiting the wealthy will have a funding advantage over a party perceived as mainly benefiting lower-income people, and ideally there should be arrangements that ensure that people get a good presentation of a selection of views to choose from.
The constituency spending limits are quite tight, but they don't really work. The specific loophole is, among others, that there are no effective controls on how much you can spend on marginal seats if your operation is based outside - for example, you can spend £N million on telephoning voters in marginals right up to polling day, and not one penny of it will be counted in the constituency spending limit, unless you specifically refer to the candidate or constituency. Similarly, Mr Cameron can write a four-page letter to every floating voter in marginals, varying with the interests and concerns shown by the £N million phoning, and so long as he doesn't mention the constituency or candidate it won't count. You can also have billboard advertising near the marginals, fund battle buses to visit them every week, etc., and between elections you can saturate the seats with stuff almost as much as you like. People do get resistant to leaflets, but if you've told a canvasser that you are interested in taxes and party X then writes to you about taxes 4 times a year for years while Y can't afford to, you may well feel that X really cares about your issue and Y doesn't.
In principle, I think that effective spending limits are the way to go - I don't much care if the Tories have an extra £50 million to spend on research or whatever, so long as it doesn't tilt the balance in voter-facing campaigns. But in reality I'm not sure it's possible to draw up rules that human ingenuity will not get around, so having a much tighter national spending limit (it's currently something mad like £15 million a year) may be the way to go. Another option might be the Danish one of having much-expanded TV time for all the parties so they can put their case in detail (the Danes don't give more time to bigger parties, by the way, so LibDems, Greens and UKIP would love it), though a Campaign for More PPBs will not be universally popular.
We already have limits local and national and they seem reasonable. Labour used to have big non union donors, whose fault is it if Corbyn scares them off. Why should unions strong arm money out of its members they do not want to give? And who says tories are for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the non wealthy. How come they got millions more votes than labour in that case. How come labour got wiped out in Scotland? Pure self serving self promoting nonsense from labour.
Comments
Clever use of parts in a round, whole song changes meaning with the addition of other voices. Can;'t find a link on youtube at the moment.
What would happen if the Parliamentary Labour Party passed a motion of no confidence in their leader? Would Corbyn just shrug it off with a "meh...."?
Steve Bong
Still no statement on the death of David Bowie from @LibDems. And they call themselves a Party of Government?
I think the other point about music is that once you get into it, you can find all types of music interesting and enjoyable. I have very eclectic tastes. And the second thing is that if you play, however badly, it hugely increases your understanding and enjoyment of music.
I agree that Mozart did write a lot of inconsequential music but then he was prolific and wrote a lot of great music too. I think there's a case for him as the GOAT:
* He produced seriously great works in many different forms - chamber music, symphonies, concerti, opera etc
* He may have been the greatest musical dramatist of all time. Only Wagner can seriously compete with him
I would still give the prize to Bach though.
Eine Kleine Nachtmusik was my favourite thing when I was a very small child. My parents used to play it to me when I was 2 or 3. Perhaps it was good at shutting me up.
They need to either mount a formal challenge, resign the whip or form another party.
I'll believe it when I see it though.
Now, historically we have a very British fudge on this. The Tories get money largely from the City and a few wealthy individuals. Labour gets money largely from the unions and a few wealthy individuals, plus (when in Opposition) help in research with the Short money. Neither arrangement is beyond criticism, frankly, but in the absence of public consent for party funding by taxpayers it's the only thing that works. The Tories are now quite deliberately wrecking the basis for Labour funding, while doing nothing about their their own funding or the gaping holes in spending limits. The outcome, if not modified, will be a glaringly tilted playing field, and that seems undesirable whatever one thinks of the parties that are currently on the pitch. Note that Short money was introduced by Labour in power to address the problem of the Opposition needing adequate funding for research, so on this occasion it can't be said that both sides are guilty of rigging the system.
It was dreadful - does the series pickup in quality or has it done a Heroes?
If Labour can only continue to exist to spread its pernicious nastiness by playing with a marked deck, then it is time it died. If Labour cannot get funds from industry - the funds it had no problem getting in the Blair era - then that tells you more about Labour than about industry.
In middle of old Criminal Minds, they're really quite clever. Much preferred Agent Gideon to Rossi period.
But when I need cheering up, I listen to Art. My God, he was blind, and could do that... What have I got to worry about?
one of his slower renditions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkbOHOHWjE4
But Labour appear to me to be complaining that they will be deprived of money because no-one will support them. Er, oh dear, well boo hoo, I'm afraid. The problem is the lack of support not the change in rules.
I don't know what the issue with Short money is, I'm afraid, so won't comment on that.
But I do think that parties complaining that people won't fund them and therefore they should have money from those same people get no sympathy from me. If a political party cannot persuade people to part with their cash, then no matter how long or illustrious its history, it has no right to survival.
I am totally against taxpayer funding for political parties - beyond some small sum for official roles, as per Short money. Parties should have to rely on ordinary taxpayers - not very rich people or organisations - precisely because it is one way of keeping them in touch with what ordinary taxpayers think. If you're insulated from the people, if you think yourself entitled to money regardless, this is not good for politics or democracy or people's trust in politicians.
But he still hasn't said he would use them either. He's still soft on terrorism, soft on the causes of terrorism.
If Labour can't persuade them to do so, perhaps it might be an idea to ask yourself why, rather than blaming others for funding difficulties.
I have just discovered and binge watched 4 seasons of Longmire, if anyone is interested in a more character and dialogue based procedural than is the norm. I was addicted from the first episode.
A secondbest alternative would be to permit Union members to affiliate to any legal political party.
The important stat here is that the membership of large Trade Unions is not wholly Labour supporting, therefore they are undemocratic, and the claim to "represent all out members" is quoestionable. Was it Unite or Unison that had fewer than half its members vote Lab in 2010 and 2015?
I think opt-in affiliation is an obviously correct move, but does needs to be balanced by reforms to company donations.
The Tebbit reforms were howled at at the time but have proven to be remarkably prescient. Who would want to go back to mass meetings and shows of hands?
The numbers seem to show that Lab is more in the pocket of TUs than the Tories are of big business:
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/labour-funding-party-donors-tories-factcheck/13899
I think on this one there is something of an historic opportunity here if the Tories grasp it. Labour has a lot of members to pick up the slack, so let us move it towards individual funding of politics. Tories have fewer members, so if it is done carefully the PR should work too.
Corbyn can do as many "refuse to rule out" statements as he likes now. But he was defined by his initial responses - and his earlier statements about 9/11 and 7/7 and what his associates (yes, you, Ken and Seamus) are also now saying and have said.
Cross-party consensus should be better save for the risk - quite a high risk, IMO - that the parties all gang up and agree not to screw each other over but to screw us instead.
For me the issue is one of whether the MP is a representative of their constituents or a representative of their party. The answer, to my mind, is clearly the former - even though the MP was elected, in large part, because of their party affiliation.
So if 200 Labour MPs resigned the Labour whip and sat as independents without any party affiliation (and without any attempt to for a new Independent bloc) then the Commons authorities would have to look at the distribution of MPs on a party-by-party basis and look at which was the largest group and thus the one entitled to be given the role of Official Opposition.
If we let the 200 resignation scenario play out, that would leave Labour on 32 seats and the SNP on 54 - so the SNP would have a clear claim to become the Official Opposition.
In broader constitutional terms, I think it would be deeply problematic to have the Official Opposition party being one that only has members representing constituencies in a small part of the UK. Having a regional party as the main Opposition is not ideal - but if the numbers are such then that is the logical outcome.
I can't see the 200 resignation scenario happening, but it is interesting to wonder what might happen if it did!
New Thread!
But this leads onto the question, why does Labour have a much larger membership than the Tories but fewer voters?
The constituency spending limits are quite tight, but they don't really work. The specific loophole is, among others, that there are no effective controls on how much you can spend on marginal seats if your operation is based outside - for example, you can spend £N million on telephoning voters in marginals right up to polling day, and not one penny of it will be counted in the constituency spending limit, unless you specifically refer to the candidate or constituency. Similarly, Mr Cameron can write a four-page letter to every floating voter in marginals, varying with the interests and concerns shown by the £N million phoning, and so long as he doesn't mention the constituency or candidate it won't count. You can also have billboard advertising near the marginals, fund battle buses to visit them every week, etc., and between elections you can saturate the seats with stuff almost as much as you like. People do get resistant to leaflets, but if you've told a canvasser that you are interested in taxes and party X then writes to you about taxes 4 times a year for years while Y can't afford to, you may well feel that X really cares about your issue and Y doesn't.
In principle, I think that effective spending limits are the way to go - I don't much care if the Tories have an extra £50 million to spend on research or whatever, so long as it doesn't tilt the balance in voter-facing campaigns. But in reality I'm not sure it's possible to draw up rules that human ingenuity will not get around, so having a much tighter national spending limit (it's currently something mad like £15 million a year) may be the way to go. Another option might be the Danish one of having much-expanded TV time for all the parties so they can put their case in detail (the Danes don't give more time to bigger parties, by the way, so LibDems, Greens and UKIP would love it), though a Campaign for More PPBs will not be universally popular.
And who says tories are for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the non wealthy. How come they got millions more votes than labour in that case. How come labour got wiped out in Scotland? Pure self serving self promoting nonsense from labour.