I feel all this talk of crazy lefties is unfairly taking attention away from crazy right wingers on twitter as well, who put just as much effort into their craziness damn it! We need something to really get them going, surely Tommy Robinson's successful appeal unleashed some?
I think PB rather forestalled that by agreeing that, no matter how contemptible Tommy Robinson is, he's entitled to a fair trial and that judge fucked up big time.
I feel all this talk of crazy lefties is unfairly taking attention away from crazy right wingers on twitter as well, who put just as much effort into their craziness damn it! We need something to really get them going, surely Tommy Robinson's successful appeal unleashed some?
I think PB rather forestalled that by agreeing that, no matter how contemptible Tommy Robinson is, he's entitled to a fair trial and that judge fucked up big time.
Sure, but there have to be some out there who are railing in the various conspiracies against this 'innocent' 'champion of justice'.
I think yes, he is, this time. He refuses to believe he can make a moral error. And he is a genuine anti-Semite. The combo is explosive, and others around him can see it, hence the distancing by the (much more cunning) John McDonnell
He may well survive (summer helps). But this story will run.
I think McDonnell is in trouble on this too, supporting some pretty nasty "antizionist" groups. He's already been tainted by the "remove the word Holocaust from Holocaust memorial day" campaign he signed up to, and there's more to come.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
The reason middle age cynicism isn't robbing him of any of his power is because he feeds off it, polishes it into a weapon and then brutally attacks his own audience with it.
The ruder and more aggressive he is to his audience, the more they love him.
Yes, he's a fascinating case of a David Bowie like return, to credibility. By somehow subverting his own subversion
Even the Pythons slowly declined from their early 30s (as comedians) -and then sensibly gave up.
My theory is that stand up comedy basically depends on you, as the comedian, being the underdog antagonist "against the man", breaking the taboos of the establishment. This can be left wing, as is usual, or it can be rightwing or at least politically incorrect (think early Sarah Silverman, Ricky Gervais).
By its very nature, if you get successful, you then become The Man, rich and famous, and you can't make jokes against the Establishment, because you ARE the Establishment. For some reason a few geniuses avoid this - Eric Morecambe etc. They seem to have some innate comic gene which makes them funny whatever they do, at whatever age, but they are vanishingly rare.
Then there's the wacky observational-surreal comics like Izzard or Harry Hill. But like lyric poetry or mathematical genius this gift seems to be something that simply runs out by the age of 30-35.
Michael McIntyre being the epitome of the ultimate establishment comedian who is all observational comedy with rarely any politics jokes at all
Corbyn is safe for as long as he wants (which might be less long than people expect).
But, when he goes, the full hard-lefty-on-hard-lefty civil war is going to be a sight to behold.
Disagree. The Hard Left wants power. Desperately. Taking over Labour and becoming the government has been a wet dream, until very recently. Now the incredible prize is tantalizingly close. Still unlikely, but possible.
Corbyn until this summer has served their purposes. He has brought them to this position, where a virtually Marxist Labour Party might actually run the country.
As soon as they think his mulish, racist obstinacy might actually be an obstacle to victory, the Hard Left will knife him. They are, after all, not well known for their sweetly fraternal solidarity.
I agree, but I think the Cult wont stand for it. They are in love with JC, not some other guy who talks about Marxism a lot.
Yes, very arguable. They have a dilemma. Half their popularity is BECAUSE of genial Uncle Jez. Yet he is becoming the reason they will never actually win.
What do they do? My bet is their hunger for power means they will try someone else, if it comes down to it.
The cult will live and die with Corbyn, either Corbyn wins the next general election in which case they run the country or the Tories do in which case they and Corbynism will fade away
The Conservative Home poll earlier yet more evidence we are likely heading for a Boris v Corbyn general election after the transition period produced by the Chequers Deal comes to an end with likely still no FTA in late 2020.
If Hunt or Javid want to make their claims they better improve their poll rating with both Tory members and the public fast. As they are now Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary respectively they cannot hide behind the 'name recognition' excuse much longer
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
People don't know what they want anymore. (Except things might have been better in the 1990s, or whenever).
Corbyn is safe for as long as he wants (which might be less long than people expect).
But, when he goes, the full hard-lefty-on-hard-lefty civil war is going to be a sight to behold.
Disagree. The Hard Left wants power. Desperately. Taking over Labour and becoming the government has been a wet dream, until very recently. Now the incredible prize is tantalizingly close. Still unlikely, but possible.
Corbyn until this summer has served their purposes. He has brought them to this position, where a virtually Marxist Labour Party might actually run the country.
As soon as they think his mulish, racist obstinacy might actually be an obstacle to victory, the Hard Left will knife him. They are, after all, not well known for their sweetly fraternal solidarity.
The only hard Left alternative is McDonnell who is sharper than Corbyn but polls worse
If he does fall, and Labour somehow get some apparently sensible, reasonably lefty yet also Remainery leader (e.g. Thornberry) the Tories would very suddenly be in deep, deep shit. I could see Labour leading by 10-15 points within three months
What would that do to Brexit itself? Intriguing.
Brexit is only happening because of Corbyn. If Brexit was coherently opposed by a rampant Opposition that threatened to wipe out the Tories at the next GE, then Tories would get the jitters, very quickly. A 2nd referendum?
Thornberry has also made clear she opposes a second referendum and staying in the single market.
Only a Labour leader like Umunna would change Labour policy on that
I think yes, he is, this time. He refuses to believe he can make a moral error. And he is a genuine anti-Semite. The combo is explosive, and others around him can see it, hence the distancing by the (much more cunning) John McDonnell
He may well survive (summer helps). But this story will run.
I think McDonnell is in trouble on this too, supporting some pretty nasty "antizionist" groups. He's already been tainted by the "remove the word Holocaust from Holocaust memorial day" campaign he signed up to, and there's more to come.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
The reason middle age cynicism isn't robbing him of any of his power is because he feeds off it, polishes it into a weapon and then brutally attacks his own audience with it.
The ruder and more aggressive he is to his audience, the more they love him.
Yes, he's a fascinating case of a David Bowie like return, to credibility. By somehow subverting his own subversion
Even the Pythons slowly declined from their early 30s (as comedians) -and then sensibly gave up.
My theory is that stand up comedy basically depends on you, as the comedian, being the underdog antagonist "against the man", breaking the taboos of the establishment. This can be left wing, as is usual, or it can be rightwing or at least politically incorrect (think early Sarah Silverman, Ricky Gervais).
By its very nature, if you get successful, you then become The Man, rich and famous, and you can't make jokes against the Establishment, because you ARE the Establishment. For some reason a few geniuses avoid this - Eric Morecambe etc. They seem to have some innate comic gene which makes them funny whatever they do, at whatever age, but they are vanishingly rare.
Then there's the wacky observational-surreal comics like Izzard or Harry Hill. But like lyric poetry or mathematical genius this gift seems to be something that simply runs out by the age of 30-35.
You are right in your description of much current comedy. But it also explains why so much of it is so very predictable and not really very funny. It’s all about epater the right-wing bourgeoisie and most of the time you can see the predictable jokes and punchlines a mile off.
The best comedians are those who have funny bones - who just are funny, who can find humour in the most unexpected of situations and who have or are good writers. Age doesn’t have to come into it. Think of Victoria Wood, for instance.
Age only matters if your comedy style is that of the perpetual adolescent railing against the adults. Even adolescents get bored with that, let alone the poor bloody audience.
If he does fall, and Labour somehow get some apparently sensible, reasonably lefty yet also Remainery leader (e.g. Thornberry) the Tories would very suddenly be in deep, deep shit. I could see Labour leading by 10-15 points within three months
What would that do to Brexit itself? Intriguing.
Brexit is only happening because of Corbyn. If Brexit was coherently opposed by a rampant Opposition that threatened to wipe out the Tories at the next GE, then Tories would get the jitters, very quickly. A 2nd referendum?
Thornberry has also made clear she opposes a second referendum and staying in the single market.
Only a Labour leader like Umunna would change Labour policy on that
Parroting the leader's lines (or the leader's office's lines, at least). A fair chance that would change were she in the hot-seat.
What about the likes of Bournemouth grammar school which now has 7% of pupils on free school meals by giving all Bournemouth pupil premium candidates who pass the entrance test entry regardless of how close they live to the school?
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
People don't know what they want anymore. (Except things might have been better in the 1990s, or whenever).
They want a bit less immigration, hence Brexit and they want austerity to be near its end, hence Corbyn but basically they are still pretty centrist on the whole
If he does fall, and Labour somehow get some apparently sensible, reasonably lefty yet also Remainery leader (e.g. Thornberry) the Tories would very suddenly be in deep, deep shit. I could see Labour leading by 10-15 points within three months
What would that do to Brexit itself? Intriguing.
Brexit is only happening because of Corbyn. If Brexit was coherently opposed by a rampant Opposition that threatened to wipe out the Tories at the next GE, then Tories would get the jitters, very quickly. A 2nd referendum?
Thornberry has also made clear she opposes a second referendum and staying in the single market.
Only a Labour leader like Umunna would change Labour policy on that
Parroting the leader's lines (or the leader's office's lines, at least). A fair chance that would change were she in the hot-seat.
Not really. Thornberry is not an ideological diehard Remainer or pro single market figure like Umunna, David Miliband or Blair even if she does not have the anti EU history of Corbyn. She is basically similar to Brown or Ed Balls ie she thinks we are better off closer to the EU than distant from it but does not have much enthusiasm for it and also respects the views of working class Labour Leave voters
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
As a child in the 1970s I went to the Harz mountains in Germany. Most Scots went down there about once a month because the Honhe heath was flat and it got disturbing after a while. In the middle of the Harz mountains was the wall. It was a horrible scar of barbed wire, minefields and sentry posts. It took a bit of time looking at this monstrosity to work out that it in fact all faced inwards. It was to stop or kill their own citizens who wanted to escape the horrors of a communist society.
My discussions with intellectual communists at University often rapidly headed towards violence. Communism is evil. It does not value the individual. It has no recognition of anyone's human rights. It gives evil men (and its usually men) appalling power over the weak to allow them to exploit which they inevitably do. I have nothing but contempt for communists to this day. They are mentally and morally degenerate. I have seen the evidence.
Their fellow travellers on the left are not really any better. They make excuses for evil. In fairness this has proven to be quite useful training for them.
+1.
I travelled through East Germany & East Berlin - as an Allied Power citizen I could travel into East Berlin - entered at Checkpoint Charlie, then thought for variety I'd return to the West at Friedrichstrasse - what I didn't know was you were supposed to return via the same entry point. So when I was stopped at Friedrichstrasse and asked to wait all the movies and newsreel of people being machine gunned trying to escape the East began unrolling in my mind....in the end I was politely told to go back to Checkpoint Charlie (still convinced I'd be arrested there) and nearly collapsed when the German border guard said a cheerie 'bye bye!' as he handed my passport back.
I also travelled on the West Berlin U-Bahn that went through the east's deserted stations - which had machine gun posts....
Assuming the left stays together another leadership contest is beyond a foregone conclusion, I'm not even sure why anyone would try it?
In regards to the splitting left, firstly McDonnell. Very able, also very much where he is because of Corbyn. Corbyn needs him and he needs Corbyn. They are also friends for going on a couple of decades who have been on almost always on the same side. Why would he risk that now just as it looks like their viewpoint could achieve power?
I have doubts whether he would topple him even if he did believe some fight to replace Corbyn was the best way forward for the left but mainly I just don't think he would think that it would achieve power anyway.
Momentum, which started its life as Jeremy Corbyn for leader, has people who joined largely because they like Corbyn and his viewpoints. Which means they are more likely to be for him than against him in any leadership question.
If Momentum were against him then they would probably be against the opinion of a lot of their members and the wider membership who somewhat follow their lead, which is pretty much their powerbase. So they are highly unlikely to do it anyway and if for some reason they did they would likely lose most of their power rendering it pretty much meaningless anyway.
A lot of the people keeping Corbyn in place backed him in far darker looking times than these.
Leonid Brezhnev wanted to show his mother how far her humble son had risen. So he flew her to his palatial apartment in the Kremlin and showed her around.
She shrugged noncommittally.
So he then had her driven in his armour plated Zil down the 'Zil only lane' through Moscow's traffic to his Dacha outside Moscow.
Again unimpressed.
Finally he took her on his Presidential jet to his Palace on the Black sea.
No reaction. He implored her 'what do you think Mama? Haven't I done well?'
'Its all very nice Leonid. But what happens if the Reds come back?'
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
The reason middle age cynicism isn't robbing him of any of his power is because he feeds off it, polishes it into a weapon and then brutally attacks his own audience with it.
The ruder and more aggressive he is to his audience, the more they love him.
Yes, he's a fascinating case of a David Bowie like return, to credibility. By somehow subverting his own subversion
Even the Pythons slowly declined from their early 30s (as comedians) -and then sensibly gave up.
My theory is that stand up comedy basically depends on you, as the comedian, being the underdog antagonist "against the man", breaking the taboos of the establishment. This can be left wing, as is usual, or it can be rightwing or at least politically incorrect (think early Sarah Silverman, Ricky Gervais).
By its very nature, if you get successful, you then become The Man, rich and famous, and you can't make jokes against the Establishment, because you ARE the Establishment. For some reason a few geniuses avoid this - Eric Morecambe etc. They seem to have some innate comic gene which makes them funny whatever they do, at whatever age, but they are vanishingly rare.
Then there's the wacky observational-surreal comics like Izzard or Harry Hill. But like lyric poetry or mathematical genius this gift seems to be something that simply runs out by the age of 30-35.
I suppose the general PB consensus on these things is when minorities request things like this you have to protect their rights. At least I assume that covers Muslims as well.....
What about the likes of Bournemouth grammar school which now has 7% of pupils on free school meals by giving all Bournemouth pupil premium candidates who pass the entrance test entry regardless of how close they live to the school?
When looking at the figures one should also note that many (most ?) of those schools which give admissions priority based on FSM have only recently changed their admissions policies, so their relative figures are likely to improve steadily for the next few years.
The overall figure ought really also to be reported split between those which give priority and those which don’t.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Assuming the left stays together another leadership contest is beyond a foregone conclusion, I'm not even sure why anyone would try it?
In regards to the splitting left, firstly McDonnell. Very able, also very much where he is because of Corbyn. Corbyn needs him and he needs Corbyn. They are also friends for going on a couple of decades who have been on almost always on the same side. Why would he risk that now just as it looks like their viewpoint could achieve power?
I have doubts whether he would topple him even if he did believe some fight to replace Corbyn was the best way forward for the left but mainly I just don't think he would think that it would achieve power anyway.
Momentum, which started its life as Jeremy Corbyn for leader, has people who joined largely because they like Corbyn and his viewpoints. Which means they are more likely to be for him than against him in any leadership question.
If Momentum were against him then they would probably be against the opinion of a lot of their members and the wider membership who somewhat follow their lead, which is pretty much their powerbase. So they are highly unlikely to do it anyway and if for some reason they did they would likely lose most of their power rendering it pretty much meaningless anyway.
A lot of the people keeping Corbyn in place backed him in far darker looking times than these.
A fatally damaged Corbyn is an excellent result. Such a loathsome individual could surely never be Prime Minister
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
Interesting stuff - although should be noted this conversation was pre-Chequers. Does this make it more or less likely that Gove will become leader? Not sure.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Cameron has nothing to do with liberal democracy. If he did, he would not h ave been a Tory.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
"Naturally, there are counterexamples to my view. One is the government of David Cameron. If Britain is a nation of stubborn subversives, how on Earth did it come to be ruled by that clique of Eton/Oxbridge PPE graduates? In America, when we decide to be ruled by members of the hereditary elite, we at least demand a soothing layer of bullshit to alleviate our painful feelings of democratic hypocrisy. Thus George W Bush, of Andover, Yale and Harvard, grandson of a senator and son of a president, had to posture, absurdly, at being a good old boy from Texas, a man who “cleared brush” in his spare time.
But to my astonishment, when I moved to London, the Cameron gang didn’t even bother to pretend to be anything other than what they were. Perhaps, at least until the financial crisis, a decades-long rising economic tide had left the nation uncharacteristically complacent about its leaders. Cameron was educated to look and sound like a leader, and that may have been enough for the electorate, given a weak competitive field. But leadership by the entitled was always likely to irritate the British immune system, and when the rejection did come, it took the form of something bigger than a change of government."
There is a lot of insight in this article.
I liked his conclusion: all that we stubborn Brits need to change our minds on Brexit is for someone important (I think he means the government) to tell us that we can't.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Cameron has nothing to do with liberal democracy. If he did, he would not h ave been a Tory.
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Personally, I have a soft spot for Anarchism, though this is actually quite a broad spread of political philosophy.
I also note that it looks increasingly like Labour will have a serious debate on the #peoplesvote at conference. Peter Soulsby is the latest of a number of Labour mayors calling for it:
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Yes, I thought that odd. Capitalism doesn’t exist in a vacuum and has arguably provided the foundation for democracy - if only because democracy and choice run together. Which is incidentally why I think that monopolies and quasi-monopolies that emerge from Silicon Valley are essentially democracy destructive.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Cameron has nothing to do with liberal democracy. If he did, he would not h ave been a Tory.
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Personally, I have a soft spot for Anarchism, though this is actually quite a broad spread of political philosophy.
I also note that it looks increasingly like Labour will have a serious debate on the #peoplesvote at conference. Peter Soulsby is the latest of a number of Labour mayors calling for it:
If he does fall, and Labour somehow get some apparently sensible, reasonably lefty yet also Remainery leader (e.g. Thornberry) the Tories would very suddenly be in deep, deep shit. I could see Labour leading by 10-15 points within three months What would that do to Brexit itself? Intriguing. Brexit is only happening because of Corbyn. If Brexit was coherently opposed by a rampant Opposition that threatened to wipe out the Tories at the next GE, then Tories would get the jitters, very quickly. A 2nd referendum?
Thornberry has also made clear she opposes a second referendum and staying in the single market.
Only a Labour leader like Umunna would change Labour policy on that
Parroting the leader's lines (or the leader's office's lines, at least). A fair chance that would change were she in the hot-seat.
Not really. Thornberry is not an ideological diehard Remainer or pro single market figure like Umunna, David Miliband or Blair even if she does not have the anti EU history of Corbyn. She is basically similar to Brown or Ed Balls ie she thinks we are better off closer to the EU than distant from it but does not have much enthusiasm for it and also respects the views of working class Labour Leave voters
But if you think, as I do, that "Labour Leavers" voted as they did largely because the Remain campaign was headed by Tory toffs in the Tory Government -then what Labour ought to have been doing is to have made life difficult for the Tories as they tried to impose their own interpretation on the Leave campaign`s objectives.
Instead of this, the Labour leaders did everything in their power to make life easy for the Tories in their attempts to remove the EU safeguards. In this interpretation, Thornberry is not "respecting the views of the Labour Leave voters", she is working against them.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Cameron has nothing to do with liberal democracy. If he did, he would not h ave been a Tory.
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Personally, I have a soft spot for Anarchism, though this is actually quite a broad spread of political philosophy.
I also note that it looks increasingly like Labour will have a serious debate on the #peoplesvote at conference. Peter Soulsby is the latest of a number of Labour mayors calling for it:
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
That sounds about right, but I’d qualify that “believe” with “tend to”. It seems to me that the boundaries of these definitions are very fuzzy, and significantly overlap.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
That sounds about right, but I’d qualify that “believe” with “tend to”. It seems to me that the boundaries of these definitions are very fuzzy, and significantly overlap.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
I don't accept the first bit; liberalism embraces state intervention. But we want it to make sure that the playing field is level, not to make sure that every game is a draw.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
If the landscape/environment is significantly different it does dent the authenticity of the film. Your comment made me think of Hotel Rwanda, filmed in a very flat part of South Africa when Rwanda is known as the land of a thousand hills.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
I don't accept the first bit; liberalism embraces state intervention. But we want it to make sure that the playing field is level, not to make sure that every game is a draw.
I have no interest in draws. I just want to make sure the players have access to the same kit and training facilities. The rest is down to them.
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Just as long as you didn't allow the people any say on the EU? That "golden period"? Yeah, that went really well.....
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Just as long as you didn't allow the people any say on the EU? That "golden period"? Yeah, that went really well.....
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
I don't accept the first bit; liberalism embraces state intervention. But we want it to make sure that the playing field is level, not to make sure that every game is a draw.
I have no interest in draws. I just want to make sure the players have access to the same kit and training facilities. The rest is down to them.
I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained ithout being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
I don't accept the first bit; liberalism embraces state intervention. But we want it to make sure that the playing field is level, not to make sure that every game is a draw.
I have no interest in draws. I just want to make sure the players have access to the same kit and training facilities. The rest is down to them.
I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
Yep - as I say I think it’s about method, not ideology.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained why I never understood what social democracy was about, in a LibDem context at least. They seemed either people who wanted to like and apologise for socialism at the same time, and/or people who wanted to be more like Sweden without being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
I think that identifies the differences of emphasis correctly but of course in practice liberalism often leads to State Intervention and Social Democracy does value individual freedom so it gets a bit messy.
Putting this into a party context is more difficult. There is very little to differentiate Blairite social democracy, Clegg style liberal democracy and Cameron/Osborne liberalism. Politics accentuates the differences to give the illusion of choice. When someone not in that arc such as Corbyn or indeed Farage comes along it can be a bit of a shock. The underlying consensus is just not there.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy
And is there a hard distinction between social and liberal democracy anyway ?
Nope. Social democracy operates within liberal democracy.
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
The fundamental distinction is that liberalism stresses equality of opportunity whereas socialism/SD equality of outcome.
Nope - social democracy and liberalism are both about equality of opportunity. It’s just that they believe you get there in different ways.
Probably explained ithout being able to explain how.
I think the big difference is that social democrats believe much more strongly than liberals in the state as a force for good. We are much more collectivist in our approach, whereas liberalism - to me at least - seems much more focused on the individual and the local.
I don't accept the first bit; liberalism embraces state intervention. But we want it to make sure that the playing field is level, not to make sure that every game is a draw.
I have no interest in draws. I just want to make sure the players have access to the same kit and training facilities. The rest is down to them.
I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
Yep - as I say I think it’s about method, not ideology.
From experience I would say that liberals have a strong view that the way in which something is done can be as important as the desired outcome (means and ends); a view that I have generally found absent in even moderate Labour politicians. It's the reason why to others liberals often seem over-interested in process issues.
I wonder whether what is described here as the "Remain campaign" is right to be so hostile to this emerging idea of a "blind Brexit"? For sure, it bypasses the possibility of calamity Brexit followed by a clamour to rejoin, but nevertheless it would seem much easier to slip back in as a member from the blind Brexit position, which could last for as long as it takes for leavers to work out how to get what they want; I would imagine the hard leavers will be equally hostile.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
If the landscape/environment is significantly different it does dent the authenticity of the film. Your comment made me think of Hotel Rwanda, filmed in a very flat part of South Africa when Rwanda is known as the land of a thousand hills.
This is the first time this flaw has been pointed out to me in either film ! I thought both Hotel Rwanda and FMJ were both very good indeed. As an aside, how old will Alma Deutscher be when she peaks ?
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
Beckton gas works!
Quite !
I saw Apocalypse Now in the cinema (one which happened to have a very good sound system) when it was first released. Much of it, like Bladerunner, is now the stuff of cliche, but at the time it was an astonishing, visceral experience.
But our Mr Palmer has already told us it is thin stuff and nonsense being stirred up mostly by journalists.
not ure what you refer to. The #peoplesvote?
Ian's quoting me about a Guardian piece which quoted various mostly unnamed people ("a Momentum organiser", "a senior MP", etc.)as saying they'd like the party to adopt a referendum - I said that the Guardian was pushing it but the article looked thin to me. I don't think it's got enough steam at the moment to force a vote over the leadership's preference.
That doesn't mean Labour won't call for a referendum, but I don't think the leadership thinks the time for that will come until we see the outline of an unsatisfactory deal. Calling for a referendum while talks are in progress would look like an attempt to derail them. Calling for one when the result is clearly going to be rubbish makes sense.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
If the landscape/environment is significantly different it does dent the authenticity of the film. Your comment made me think of Hotel Rwanda, filmed in a very flat part of South Africa when Rwanda is known as the land of a thousand hills.
This is the first time this flaw has been pointed out to me in either film ! I thought both Hotel Rwanda and FMJ were both very good indeed. As an aside, how old will Alma Deutscher be when she peaks ?
If you watch 'Shooting Dogs', starring John Hurt, and compare the two films, you can see the difference that authentic on-location filming brings to a historical film.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
Beckton gas works!
An ex-gf of mine was an extra on that film; she lived in East London at the time and the film-makers advertised for people who looked oriental.
But our Mr Palmer has already told us it is thin stuff and nonsense being stirred up mostly by journalists.
not ure what you refer to. The #peoplesvote?
Ian's quoting me about a Guardian piece which quoted various mostly unnamed people ("a Momentum organiser", "a senior MP", etc.)as saying they'd like the party to adopt a referendum - I said that the Guardian was pushing it but the article looked thin to me. I don't think it's got enough steam at the moment to force a vote over the leadership's preference.
That doesn't mean Labour won't call for a referendum, but I don't think the leadership thinks the time for that will come until we see the outline of an unsatisfactory deal. Calling for a referendum while talks are in progress would look like an attempt to derail them. Calling for one when the result is clearly going to be rubbish makes sense.
I still think Labour will get there in the end - timing is everything, as the moment the entire opposition throws itself behind a final vote could be key. You are probably right that it may be too early, if we are heading towards an unsatisfactory deal or a crashout Brexit. If, however, we start to move towards a blind Brexit (see linked article below), there is an argument that it could be now or never.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
Beckton gas works!
Quite !
I saw Apocalypse Now in the cinema (one which happened to have a very good sound system) when it was first released. Much of it, like Bladerunner, is now the stuff of cliche, but at the time it was an astonishing, visceral experience.
It should not be forgotten just how astonishing that "Ride of the Valkyries" helicopter attack seemed at the time. Simply put, we had never seen a war film like it.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
If the landscape/environment is significantly different it does dent the authenticity of the film. Your comment made me think of Hotel Rwanda, filmed in a very flat part of South Africa when Rwanda is known as the land of a thousand hills.
This is the first time this flaw has been pointed out to me in either film ! I thought both Hotel Rwanda and FMJ were both very good indeed. As an aside, how old will Alma Deutscher be when she peaks ?
If you watch 'Shooting Dogs', starring John Hurt, and compare the two films, you can see the difference that authentic on-location filming brings to a historical film.
We watched a historical film last night: "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". It was brilliant, and gave me an angle on history that I'd never known before.
It's great when films give you insight to little-known history.
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Just as long as you didn't allow the people any say on the EU? That "golden period"? Yeah, that went really well.....
It didn`t for hard-line Tories, of course, who forgot that they did not have an overall majority. But I think the Coalition Government did quite well for the country as a whole. Certainly much better than the present shower of stand-alone Tories is doing.
I think that a little harsh. Nick Clegg and he had very little political difference. They got on really quite well in that golden period of good government that was the Coalition.
Just as long as you didn't allow the people any say on the EU? That "golden period"? Yeah, that went really well.....
It didn`t for hard-line Tories, of course, who forgot that they did not have an overall majority. But I think the Coalition Government did quite well for the country as a whole. Certainly much better than the present shower of stand-alone Tories is doing.
. I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
I think the stress on individual vs collective is the difference, but the fact is that this does not lie across the main left/right dividing line of British politics. The identifier for me is whether you think the job of government is to deliver good public services assisted by a strong economy on the left, or whether it is to deliver a strong economy to which public services may contribute on the right.
The fact is that LDs and Liberals have been reliably on the left of this line for a very long time - even the Orange book is very heavily about the delivery of public services.
Defining a new centre, whatever form it ultimately takes, would genuinely be enhanced by seeking to span the two mindsets.
Stewart Lee seems to have had a rare "double peak" in his career.
That double peak (or triple, or quadruple...) peak is usually a sign of quality: Spielberg had it (Jaws/CE3K/ET, then slump, then Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers), Scorsese had it (Taxi Driver/Raging Bull/The King of Comedy, then slump, then Goodfellas/Cape Fear/Casino), Hitchcock had it (early British films, then his early American period, then slump, then Psycho), Chaplin did it, Soderbergh did it, Woody Allen (let's separate the art from the artist for a moment) has done this several times.
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
You seriously think Eyes Wide Shut was not a bad film?
It was terrible. Full Metal Jacket was repeated the other night. I had forgotten how brilliant it was. As good as Apocalypse Now amongst Vietnam films IMO.
Not really. It was quite obviously filmed not on location.
If the landscape/environment is significantly different it does dent the authenticity of the film. Your comment made me think of Hotel Rwanda, filmed in a very flat part of South Africa when Rwanda is known as the land of a thousand hills.
This is the first time this flaw has been pointed out to me in either film ! I thought both Hotel Rwanda and FMJ were both very good indeed. As an aside, how old will Alma Deutscher be when she peaks ?
If you watch 'Shooting Dogs', starring John Hurt, and compare the two films, you can see the difference that authentic on-location filming brings to a historical film.
We watched a historical film last night: "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". It was brilliant, and gave me an angle on history that I'd never known before.
It's great when films give you insight to little-known history.
Not a patch on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which adds to that an interesting reading of Austen's masterpiece. (And has a hero who is oddly reminiscent of George Osborne in appearance, if not politics.)
I wonder whether what is described here as the "Remain campaign" is right to be so hostile to this emerging idea of a "blind Brexit"? For sure, it bypasses the possibility of calamity Brexit followed by a clamour to rejoin, but nevertheless it would seem much easier to slip back in as a member from the blind Brexit position, which could last for as long as it takes for leavers to work out how to get what they want; I would imagine the hard leavers will be equally hostile.
That article looks quite plausible to me - it's exactly the sort of fudge that the EU defaults to when unanimity is difficult to achieve. What it would mean in UK politics is pretty hard to read - I imagine many people would be a bit exasperated at the idea of talks continuing indefinitely, but they might be relieved at the absence of food shortages and all that stuff. On the whole I think Remainers are right to be wary - it's very close to the "Get out first, then change the leader and sort the details" which some of the Leave champions favour.
I suppose the general PB consensus on these things is when minorities request things like this you have to protect their rights. At least I assume that covers Muslims as well.....
This was raised the other day and I responded that of course Palestinians (remember that not all Palestinians are Muslims though it is interesting that you should assume so) could raise what they wanted. Provided that they also realised that others could also raise issues which Palestinians might find embarrassing. For instance, what happens to all the money sent by European authorities to Palestinian authorities? Why do the Palestinian authorities reward those who kill Jews? What gets taught in Palestinian schools to children? And so on and so forth.
Free speech not being a one-way street, and all that.
I think that identifies the differences of emphasis correctly but of course in practice liberalism often leads to State Intervention and Social Democracy does value individual freedom so it gets a bit messy.
Putting this into a party context is more difficult. There is very little to differentiate Blairite social democracy, Clegg style liberal democracy and Cameron/Osborne liberalism. Politics accentuates the differences to give the illusion of choice. When someone not in that arc such as Corbyn or indeed Farage comes along it can be a bit of a shock. The underlying consensus is just not there.
The convergence of the Orange Bookers and the Cameroons was remarkable from 2005-08 - on here for example there was active debate and a lot of agreement between the Conservatives and LDs as to the post-Blair and then post-Brown direction.
Both parties had reached that point in response to the seeming triumph of Blairism - years of economic prosperity and stability marred (as many of us saw it) by the Iraq War which divided the Conservatives at the time.
The GFC remains, along with 9/11, the seminal event of recent times. I strongly believe our current political situation and everything that has led to it can be traced directly back to the global financial crisis and the panic of 2007-08. The economic, cultural, political, social and psychological ramifications of that event have shaped the 2010s and will probably shape the 2020s.
There has still not been an adequate response from the centre-left to why it happened and a new economic model for the future. The centre-right ran back to austerity (its comfort zone if you will) while those who had, in the early noughties, been prepared to see more of the wealth re-distributed became fearful they would lose their own and returned to traditional economic "fear" (cut my taxes, don't spend my money on scroungers, layabouts, welfare claimants and foreigners).
The other puzzle around that social democracy poll is that the EU itself is a fundamentally centrist organisation whose motor has been the interplay between social democratic, liberal democratic and Christian democratic governments in Paris, Bonn, Berlin, Rome and eventually London. This is why it's support base in the UK, and elsewhere, comes from the centre.
If such centrism is so popular, the basis on which Remain could have won was surely there.
What about the likes of Bournemouth grammar school which now has 7% of pupils on free school meals by giving all Bournemouth pupil premium candidates who pass the entrance test entry regardless of how close they live to the school?
When looking at the figures one should also note that many (most ?) of those schools which give admissions priority based on FSM have only recently changed their admissions policies, so their relative figures are likely to improve steadily for the next few years.
The overall figure ought really also to be reported split between those which give priority and those which don’t.
Indeed and as grammars can only expand if they take more FSM pupils that trend is only likely to increase
. I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
I think the stress on individual vs collective is the difference, but the fact is that this does not lie across the main left/right dividing line of British politics. The identifier for me is whether you think the job of government is to deliver good public services assisted by a strong economy on the left, or whether it is to deliver a strong economy to which public services may contribute on the right.
The fact is that LDs and Liberals have been reliably on the left of this line for a very long time - even the Orange book is very heavily about the delivery of public services.
Defining a new centre, whatever form it ultimately takes, would genuinely be enhanced by seeking to span the two mindsets.
I see your point. What I don't see is any party giving primacy to delivering a strong economy right now.
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Moderated capitalism though with a welfare state and public services, pure capitalism is libertarianism and both capitalism and libertarianism had a negative rating in this poll just as socialism and communism did
I think the stress on individual vs collective is the difference, but the fact is that this does not lie across the main left/right dividing line of British politics. The identifier for me is whether you think the job of government is to deliver good public services assisted by a strong economy on the left, or whether it is to deliver a strong economy to which public services may contribute on the right.
The fact is that LDs and Liberals have been reliably on the left of this line for a very long time - even the Orange book is very heavily about the delivery of public services.
Defining a new centre, whatever form it ultimately takes, would genuinely be enhanced by seeking to span the two mindsets.
By your curious and dubious measure, the Conservatives would be on the Left as well. May is an interventionist in the style of a Heseltine while all the Conservatives I encounter, especially at local level, are passionate believers in strong and well-run public services.
There may be differences with other parties over priorities and emphasis but I'm pretty certain most Conservatives value the work of social workers, police men and women, fire fighters and the like and would like the maximum resources to be made available to these front-line public-facing workers. We also see May wanting to spend even more on the NHS so that must make her a "leftie" in your eyes, or does it ?
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Moderated capitalism though with a welfare state and public services, pure capitalism is libertarianism and both capitalism and libertarianism had a negative rating in this poll just as socialism and communism did
Unadulterated capitalism has its downsides, but increasingly the word is becoming associated with the kind of 21st century oligarchic/monopolistic capitalism that is a long way from ice cream sellers spaced evenly along a beach. I expect it was the latter type that respondents to the survey had in mind.
If he does fall, and Labour somehow get some apparently sensible, endum?
Thornberry has also made clear she opposes a second referendum and staying in the single market.
Only a Labour leader like Umunna would change Labour policy on that
Parroting the leader's lines (or the leader's office's lines, at least). A fair chance that would change were she in the hot-seat.
Not really. Thornberry is not an ideological diehard Remainer or pro single market figure like Umunna, David Miliband or Blair even if she does not have the anti EU history of Corbyn. She is basically similar to Brown or Ed Balls ie she thinks we are better off closer to the EU than distant from it but does not have much enthusiasm for it and also respects the views of working class Labour Leave voters
But if you think, as I do, that "Labour Leavers" voted as they did largely because the Remain campaign was headed by Tory toffs in the Tory Government -then what Labour ought to have been doing is to have made life difficult for the Tories as they tried to impose their own interpretation on the Leave campaign`s objectives.
Instead of this, the Labour leaders did everything in their power to make life easy for the Tories in their attempts to remove the EU safeguards. In this interpretation, Thornberry is not "respecting the views of the Labour Leave voters", she is working against them.
Labour Leavers or certainly at least the majority of working class Leave voters in Labour Leave seats did so mainly to reduce immigration and the government is still committed to end free movement as is Labour by leaving the single market.
Given Corbyn Labour is concerned about staying in the single market because it would not allow it to nationalise enough of the economy and the Tories have largely replicated much EU regulation in statute anyway like GDPR I don't think your argument holds on that
The other puzzle around that social democracy poll is that the EU itself is a fundamentally centrist organisation whose motor has been the interplay between social democratic, liberal democratic and Christian democratic governments in Paris, Bonn, Berlin, Rome and eventually London. This is why it's support base in the UK, and elsewhere, comes from the centre.
If such centrism is so popular, the basis on which Remain could have won was surely there.
Immigration was the key reason Leave won over 50% and of course Blair's failure to impose transition controls as he could have done under EU law in 2004
The interesting thing is that for all the talk of populism the only 2 ideologies with net positive ratings in the Opinium survey were soggy centrist Cameroon liberal democracy and Blairite social democracy.
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
The thing that most people seem to have missed - perhaps because it is so obvious - is that both social and liberal democracy are predicated on capitalism. Neither work without it.
Moderated capitalism though with a welfare state and public services, pure capitalism is libertarianism and both capitalism and libertarianism had a negative rating in this poll just as socialism and communism did
Unadulterated capitalism has its downsides, but increasingly the word is becoming associated with the kind of 21st century oligarchic/monopolistic capitalism that is a long way from ice cream sellers spaced evenly along a beach. I expect it was the latter type that respondents to the survey had in mind.
If so libertarianism would have been higher but neither capitalist oligarchy or libertarian 'shrink the state to the size of the plughole' and scrap most welfare had majority support
. I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
I think the stress on individual vs collective is the difference, but the fact is that this does not lie across the main left/right dividing line of British politics. The identifier for me is whether you think the job of government is to deliver good public services assisted by a strong economy on the left, or whether it is to deliver a strong economy to which public services may contribute on the right.
The fact is that LDs and Liberals have been reliably on the left of this line for a very long time - even the Orange book is very heavily about the delivery of public services.
Defining a new centre, whatever form it ultimately takes, would genuinely be enhanced by seeking to span the two mindsets.
I see your point. What I don't see is any party giving primacy to delivering a strong economy right now.
To be, perhaps overly, fair, the Tory right do see Brexit as an economic endeavour, the opportunity for deregulation and restructuring, an heir to Thatcherite policies. Very much Singapore-on-Thames.
And all the echoes of 79-81, pain for gain, if it isn't hurting it isn't working, are ringing in their ears.
Even Boris's 'F business' line could readily be expanded - they don't know what's good for them.
Of course, the trouble with the concept of Creative Destruction is that it's strongest advocates are almost invariably common-or-garden Destroyers using the fig leaf and hope of future Creation by somebody else.
. I agree. So far we haven't really identified a difference other than a stress on the individual as against on the collective. Which to be fair is quite important, at least to me.
I think the stress on individual vs collective is the difference, but the fact is that this does not lie across the main left/right dividing line of British politics. The identifier for me is whether you think the job of government is to deliver good public services assisted by a strong economy on the left, or whether it is to deliver a strong economy to which public services may contribute on the right.
The fact is that LDs and Liberals have been reliably on the left of this line for a very long time - even the Orange book is very heavily about the delivery of public services.
Defining a new centre, whatever form it ultimately takes, would genuinely be enhanced by seeking to span the two mindsets.
I see your point. What I don't see is any party giving primacy to delivering a strong economy right now.
To be, perhaps overly, fair, the Tory right do see Brexit as an economic endeavour, the opportunity for deregulation and restructuring, an heir to Thatcherite policies. Very much Singapore-on-Thames.
And all the echoes of 79-81, pain for gain, if it isn't hurting it isn't working, are ringing in their ears.
Even Boris's 'F business' line could readily be expanded - they don't know what's good for them.
Of course, the trouble with the concept of Creative Destruction is that it's strongest advocates are almost invariably common-or-garden Destroyers using the fig leaf and hope of future Creation by somebody else.
Though Boris also backed the extra funds for the NHS from Brexit
Comments
Socialism, Libertarianism and Capitalism all had net negative ratings and Communism, Fascism and Anarchism very high net negative ratings so while populist parties and protest votes will continue to be made they are unlikely to elect the party of government for any sustained period
If Hunt or Javid want to make their claims they better improve their poll rating with both Tory members and the public fast. As they are now Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary respectively they cannot hide behind the 'name recognition' excuse much longer
Only a Labour leader like Umunna would change Labour policy on that
The best comedians are those who have funny bones - who just are funny, who can find humour in the most unexpected of situations and who have or are good writers. Age doesn’t have to come into it. Think of Victoria Wood, for instance.
Age only matters if your comedy style is that of the perpetual adolescent railing against the adults. Even adolescents get bored with that, let alone the poor bloody audience.
Note the reference to the Labour MP helping the abuser get a visa.
I know, scary isn't it
It's all a smear
It's all a smear
It's all a smear
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44727857
It's not consistent: Ridley Scott has been up and down so many times now I've given up (he should have been shot for Alien:Covenant), Kubrick never made a bad film (says me), nor Christopher Nolan. And what do you do with Michael Mann or Terrence Malik, who are brilliant but aren't doing as well these days as they really should?
Sorry I seem to have gone off on a tangent...
I travelled through East Germany & East Berlin - as an Allied Power citizen I could travel into East Berlin - entered at Checkpoint Charlie, then thought for variety I'd return to the West at Friedrichstrasse - what I didn't know was you were supposed to return via the same entry point. So when I was stopped at Friedrichstrasse and asked to wait all the movies and newsreel of people being machine gunned trying to escape the East began unrolling in my mind....in the end I was politely told to go back to Checkpoint Charlie (still convinced I'd be arrested there) and nearly collapsed when the German border guard said a cheerie 'bye bye!' as he handed my passport back.
I also travelled on the West Berlin U-Bahn that went through the east's deserted stations - which had machine gun posts....
https://twitter.com/RecordsWar/status/1024549788400996352
https://coldwarrecords.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/what-made-berlins-underground-eerie/
Assuming the left stays together another leadership contest is beyond a foregone conclusion, I'm not even sure why anyone would try it?
In regards to the splitting left, firstly McDonnell. Very able, also very much where he is because of Corbyn. Corbyn needs him and he needs Corbyn. They are also friends for going on a couple of decades who have been on almost always on the same side. Why would he risk that now just as it looks like their viewpoint could achieve power?
I have doubts whether he would topple him even if he did believe some fight to replace Corbyn was the best way forward for the left but mainly I just don't think he would think that it would achieve power anyway.
Momentum, which started its life as Jeremy Corbyn for leader, has people who joined largely because they like Corbyn and his viewpoints. Which means they are more likely to be for him than against him in any leadership question.
If Momentum were against him then they would probably be against the opinion of a lot of their members and the wider membership who somewhat follow their lead, which is pretty much their powerbase. So they are highly unlikely to do it anyway and if for some reason they did they would likely lose most of their power rendering it pretty much meaningless anyway.
A lot of the people keeping Corbyn in place backed him in far darker looking times than these.
Leonid Brezhnev wanted to show his mother how far her humble son had risen. So he flew her to his palatial apartment in the Kremlin and showed her around.
She shrugged noncommittally.
So he then had her driven in his armour plated Zil down the 'Zil only lane' through Moscow's traffic to his Dacha outside Moscow.
Again unimpressed.
Finally he took her on his Presidential jet to his Palace on the Black sea.
No reaction. He implored her 'what do you think Mama? Haven't I done well?'
'Its all very nice Leonid. But what happens if the Reds come back?'
https://twitter.com/SelectUSA/status/1024682472343261184
I suppose the general PB consensus on these things is when minorities request things like this you have to protect their rights. At least I assume that covers Muslims as well.....
The overall figure ought really also to be reported split between those which give priority and those which don’t.
https://www.ft.com/content/722039cc-9579-11e8-b67b-b8205561c3fe
Basically, people voted for the two things that sound the nicest. I don’t blame them. But it doesn’t tell us much beyond most of us steer to the centre-ground - either a bit to the left or a bit to the right. Like all social democrats I believe capitalism is the best way to sustainably create wealth that can then be sustainably redistributed to enable a more equal, fairer society.
Does this make it more or less likely that Gove will become leader? Not sure.
I liked his conclusion: all that we stubborn Brits need to change our minds on Brexit is for someone important (I think he means the government) to tell us that we can't.
Mr. B2, that would certainly be courageous.
Personally, I have a soft spot for Anarchism, though this is actually quite a broad spread of political philosophy.
I also note that it looks increasingly like Labour will have a serious debate on the #peoplesvote at conference. Peter Soulsby is the latest of a number of Labour mayors calling for it:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-mayor-peter-soulsby-calls-1841692
Instead of this, the Labour leaders did everything in their power to make life easy for the Tories in their attempts to remove the EU safeguards. In this interpretation, Thornberry is not "respecting the views of the Labour Leave voters", she is working against them.
Putting this into a party context is more difficult. There is very little to differentiate Blairite social democracy, Clegg style liberal democracy and Cameron/Osborne liberalism. Politics accentuates the differences to give the illusion of choice. When someone not in that arc such as Corbyn or indeed Farage comes along it can be a bit of a shock. The underlying consensus is just not there.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/01/german-sources-deny-brexit-deal-offer-amid-panic-in-remain-campaign
I thought both Hotel Rwanda and FMJ were both very good indeed. As an aside, how old will Alma Deutscher be when she peaks ?
I saw Apocalypse Now in the cinema (one which happened to have a very good sound system) when it was first released.
Much of it, like Bladerunner, is now the stuff of cliche, but at the time it was an astonishing, visceral experience.
That doesn't mean Labour won't call for a referendum, but I don't think the leadership thinks the time for that will come until we see the outline of an unsatisfactory deal. Calling for a referendum while talks are in progress would look like an attempt to derail them. Calling for one when the result is clearly going to be rubbish makes sense.
It's great when films give you insight to little-known history.
The fact is that LDs and Liberals have been reliably on the left of this line for a very long time - even the Orange book is very heavily about the delivery of public services.
Defining a new centre, whatever form it ultimately takes, would genuinely be enhanced by seeking to span the two mindsets.
(And has a hero who is oddly reminiscent of George Osborne in appearance, if not politics.)
Free speech not being a one-way street, and all that.
Both parties had reached that point in response to the seeming triumph of Blairism - years of economic prosperity and stability marred (as many of us saw it) by the Iraq War which divided the Conservatives at the time.
The GFC remains, along with 9/11, the seminal event of recent times. I strongly believe our current political situation and everything that has led to it can be traced directly back to the global financial crisis and the panic of 2007-08. The economic, cultural, political, social and psychological ramifications of that event have shaped the 2010s and will probably shape the 2020s.
There has still not been an adequate response from the centre-left to why it happened and a new economic model for the future. The centre-right ran back to austerity (its comfort zone if you will) while those who had, in the early noughties, been prepared to see more of the wealth re-distributed became fearful they would lose their own and returned to traditional economic "fear" (cut my taxes, don't spend my money on scroungers, layabouts, welfare claimants and foreigners).
If such centrism is so popular, the basis on which Remain could have won was surely there.
There may be differences with other parties over priorities and emphasis but I'm pretty certain most Conservatives value the work of social workers, police men and women, fire fighters and the like and would like the maximum resources to be made available to these front-line public-facing workers. We also see May wanting to spend even more on the NHS so that must make her a "leftie" in your eyes, or does it ?
Given Corbyn Labour is concerned about staying in the single market because it would not allow it to nationalise enough of the economy and the Tories have largely replicated much EU regulation in statute anyway like GDPR I don't think your argument holds on that
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/08/javid-holds-the-lead-as-may-tanks-and-ratings-tumble-in-our-cabinet-league-table.html
"They're all in it together".....
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1024920585325957120
And all the echoes of 79-81, pain for gain, if it isn't hurting it isn't working, are ringing in their ears.
Even Boris's 'F business' line could readily be expanded - they don't know what's good for them.
Of course, the trouble with the concept of Creative Destruction is that it's strongest advocates are almost invariably common-or-garden Destroyers using the fig leaf and hope of future Creation by somebody else.