I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
It's about audience satisfaction. I know what sort of comedian I'm going to watch. I've decided at that point that I'm already opting in to either offensive material, or swearing, or lefty politics or feminism or The Krankies.
So yes, people should be free to tell jokes. If there's no audience willing to listen then they'll change their act (or starve).
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
How is that comedy?
A comedian on a stage telling jokes != a hooligan in a crowd pelting somebody at a football ground.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
I think that it's largely self-policing. If a comedian oversteps what his audience considers to be the bounds of decency, then he'll get a bad reaction.
It seems to me, though, that there is a grey area between what is considered comedy and what is considered hate speech. Imagine, for example, a Muslim comedian telling crass, offensive jokes about Jews to a Muslim audience. If the audience continues to laugh and cheer as he tells increasingly tasteless jokes about, say, the Holocaust, would you say that makes his act perfectly acceptable?
I find it strange that barely a year after she withdrew having got down to the final two she now wants another go?
Well, we never did get to the bottom of that story. Personally, I think there was a visit from the men in grey suits.
I suspect Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill barged in, waving ICM polling around and beseeching her not to stand in the way of Theresa and the nailed-on landslide. Obviously that all went pear shaped, but the Tory Right still crave a new Maggie and will put their faith in Andrea this time as the real deal.
It probably is a success if it postpones the moment Trump's supporters realise they did need Obamacare after all. Now the Donald can keep tweeting without having to find a solution.
I generally agree - but I think there are some issues that are just too insensitive?
Imagine for instance someone telling jokes the next day that were mean about the victims of the Manchester bombing...
This is easy to say when you're not the target. When you're the black footballer being pelted with bananas or something like that it's different I would suggest.
The people throwing the bananas probably think it's funny and just a joke? Maybe it's not the best example though.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
I think that it's largely self-policing. If a comedian oversteps what his audience considers to be the bounds of decency, then he'll get a bad reaction.
It seems to me, though, that there is a grey area between what is considered comedy and what is considered hate speech. Imagine, for example, a Muslim comedian telling crass, offensive jokes about Jews to a Muslim audience. If the audience continues to laugh and cheer as he tells increasingly tasteless jokes about, say, the Holocaust, would you say that makes his act perfectly acceptable?
Yes. I wouldn't have bought tickets to see him. He can say what he likes.
If I accidentally walked in because it was usually Matzo Anonymous in that room on a Thursday then I'm free to turn around and walk out.
Now if he was doing the same on a street corner with a megaphone I'd expect a policeman to ask him to stop.
Very good header Mike. I was gushing with support when Davis first did his by-election stunt, but I now appreciate I was an idiot and a dupe. The whole thing was a risible farce that achieved absolutely bugger all. Davis then skulked off to be the Tories' answer to Jeremy Corbyn - voting against his leadership at every opportunity - and was occasionally seen making boorish homophobic remarks in London bars or smirking with Michael Crick around canteen service hatches. What a complete and utter dud!
He's proving good as Brexit Secretary though, IMO...
I must have missed his laundry list of achievements. But Brexit supporters need him to get the Tory leadership. If he doesn't he'll get in another massive huff, resign spectacularly and attempt to bring down Brexit with him. I can see how this is shaping up.
As Leavers are self evidently schismatics, this is indeed likely.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
LOL, ours will be along soon , the Tories will clinch it for sure.
Don't you think Scotland will swing strongly to Jezza?
One would hope not , exchange one set of rogues for another even dafter one. However there are no bounds to the stupidity of the electorate in Scotland so entirely possible that they could forget the Labour record over the last 50 years.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Got a lot of sympathy with that, as a LD voter. Somehow that has to be put right. Although to be fair my graduate grandchildren (2012 & 2014) don’t seem too bothered.
I think that it's largely self-policing. If a comedian oversteps what his audience considers to be the bounds of decency, then he'll get a bad reaction.
Kevin Bridges handled it well.
After a joke that could have gone either way, his next line was "A few in the audience checking the offside flag on that one"
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as someone not normally minded to vote Conservative, whoever becomes Tory leader is not something that worries me unduly. When the only alternative to the Conservatives is Corbyn, it certainly is important.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
I think that it's largely self-policing. If a comedian oversteps what his audience considers to be the bounds of decency, then he'll get a bad reaction.
It seems to me, though, that there is a grey area between what is considered comedy and what is considered hate speech. Imagine, for example, a Muslim comedian telling crass, offensive jokes about Jews to a Muslim audience. If the audience continues to laugh and cheer as he tells increasingly tasteless jokes about, say, the Holocaust, would you say that makes his act perfectly acceptable?
Yes. I wouldn't have bought tickets to see him. He can say what he likes.
If I accidentally walked in because it was usually Matzo Anonymous in that room on a Thursday then I'm free to turn around and walk out.
Now if he was doing the same on a street corner with a megaphone I'd expect a policeman to ask him to stop.
How, though, do you draw a line between crass comedy and hate speech? If, say, Abu Hamza had simply claimed that he was speaking ironically at Finsbury Park Mosque, would that have saved him from prosecution? Can anyone say anything and call it comedy if their self-selected audience shows appreciation?
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
Think its something to do with the theory of relativity. She's not up against much.
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
People attending a comedy club are willing participants in the comedy. People getting abused by hooligans at their workplace are not. That is the difference between comedy and abuse.
As for the latter link, there is rightly in America a very strict bar in the First Amendment to prevent the law from restricting free speech especially where it comes to criticising or mocking politicians like the President (or as the Guardian USA points out in that link, Congressional democrats like Reid, Baucus and Pelosi).. We could learn a thing or two about free speech from that side of the pond.
I agree that it absolutely makes a difference whether you are a willing participant or not.
But the original quote was all is fair in comedy, not all is fair in comedy between willing participants.
I think that it's largely self-policing. If a comedian oversteps what his audience considers to be the bounds of decency, then he'll get a bad reaction.
It seems to me, though, that there is a grey area between what is considered comedy and what is considered hate speech. Imagine, for example, a Muslim comedian telling crass, offensive jokes about Jews to a Muslim audience. If the audience continues to laugh and cheer as he tells increasingly tasteless jokes about, say, the Holocaust, would you say that makes his act perfectly acceptable?
Yes. I wouldn't have bought tickets to see him. He can say what he likes.
If I accidentally walked in because it was usually Matzo Anonymous in that room on a Thursday then I'm free to turn around and walk out.
Now if he was doing the same on a street corner with a megaphone I'd expect a policeman to ask him to stop.
How, though, do you draw a line between crass comedy and hate speech? If, say, Abu Hamza had simply claimed that he was speaking ironically at Finsbury Park Mosque, would that have saved him from prosecution? Can anyone say anything and call it comedy if their self-selected audience shows appreciation?
How much were tickets to Abu Live! at the Finsbury Park Colosseum - Every Thursday and Saturday!
I must have scrolled past that gig on the Comedy Store website whilst I was looking for Jack Dee,
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
I think she might have beaten May among the members had it got that far.
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
Interesting that you rate her as a poor public speaker.
How many times have you been to see Andrea Leadsom speaking in public? Roughly? It doesn't have to be exact. Just approximately to the nearest "I haven't".
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
I think she might have beaten May among the members had it got that far.
Let's hope Tory MPs don't let her get near the membership then.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little tweak of the the t&c's had massive implications.
Now they very much are designed to be paid off, even with stagnant real wages. Currently, 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
That was the whole point, of course.
Tax cuts and benefit increases for the tory client vote funded by massive future taxes on young, ambitious not-yet-voters.
Short term it was politically smart, long term it's massively toxic and economically inept.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
I'm unsure Central London would be large enough to fit his ego.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
Who says it will only be 6 children by the next election? He's a busy boy.
But as I recall, and to be really boring here - Brown had no children and Blair did so I think they swapped accommodation between the smaller flat above No10 and the larger flat above No11.
May should start looking around on the backbenches for talented younger and charismatic people and start grooming them as possible successors. The Tories have little chance if the field is confined to boring old men, sour faced Cruella de Villes, and fat blonde buffoons.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
Not the worst vision by any means.
If mogg can get the numbers of MP's if a leadership contest comes about,I am sure the membership wil give him a try.
Last year, plenty of other papers looked at the 'charity' for gay cures which she appears to have favoured. Is Leadsom a mainstream CofE or a happy, clappy, evangelical with interesting views?
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
I'm unsure Central London would be large enough to fit his ego.
I am not sure he has much of an ego at all. Certainly there have been plenty of MPs from other parties who consider him a close friend because he has made a point of being as helpful and thoughtful towards them as possible.
I am not sure whether or not he would make a good PM nor whether he could overcome his accent and Etonian background to even have a chance of it. But as a lesson in personal behaviour towards others including his opponents he seems to me to be a perfect example.
Last year, plenty of other papers looked at the 'charity' for gay cures which she appears to have favoured. Is Leadsom a mainstream CofE or a happy, clappy, evangelical with interesting views?
JRM is of course also a practising Catholic, which may go some way towards explaining both the size of his family and his anti-scientific world view.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
I'm unsure Central London would be large enough to fit his ego.
I am not sure he has much of an ego at all. Certainly there have been plenty of MPs from other parties who consider him a close friend because he has made a point of being as helpful and thoughtful towards them as possible.
I am not sure whether or not he would make a good PM nor whether he could overcome his accent and Etonian background to even have a chance of it. But as a lesson in personal behaviour towards others including his opponents he seems to me to be a perfect example.
Ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
Yep, fits him to a tee. The positive attributes you mention reflect little on his ego.
From what I have seen of her TV appearances, she makes Boris look like a Nobel Laureate. With her in charge the Tories will be in real troub.......
Not sure how Leadsom even gets a look-in. She's a 54 year old junior minister, fairly uninspired, is a poor public speaker and doesn't appear to have any interesting ideas.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
Would suit me. Of course "super sovereign" begs the question as to what trade deals he would sign and how much "sovereignty" he would thereby give up but he has been round the block, commercially, so will work something out sensibly.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
I'm unsure Central London would be large enough to fit his ego.
I am not sure he has much of an ego at all. Certainly there have been plenty of MPs from other parties who consider him a close friend because he has made a point of being as helpful and thoughtful towards them as possible.
I am not sure whether or not he would make a good PM nor whether he could overcome his accent and Etonian background to even have a chance of it. But as a lesson in personal behaviour towards others including his opponents he seems to me to be a perfect example.
Ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
Yep, fits him to a tee. The positive attributes you mention reflect little on his ego.
Thinking that you are basically an okay person does not equate with having a large ego. Neither does being willing to listen to other people's arguments even when they have a view diametrically opposed to you.
I suspect your reason for believing he has a large ego is because you happen to disagree with a lot of what he believes in and so choose to attack him personally rather than deal with his opinions directly.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
Last year, plenty of other papers looked at the 'charity' for gay cures which she appears to have favoured. Is Leadsom a mainstream CofE or a happy, clappy, evangelical with interesting views?
It depends. I'm assuming she is quite open and candid about what she believes? If so she's fine.
At best Farron tried to hide what he personally thought about sticking things up other gentlemens' bottoms. The killer was the widespread suspicion that it went a step further - he is repressing a personal struggle against an unfulfilled desire for some hot sausage-sausage action.
May should start looking around on the backbenches for talented younger and charismatic people and start grooming them as possible successors. The Tories have little chance if the field is confined to boring old men, sour faced Cruella de Villes, and fat blonde buffoons.
You are right but how does she promote anyone? The Prime Minister is too weak to sack anyone in the cabinet and junior ministers will have their protectors. Perhaps the offer of ermine will clear out some dead wood and create space. Of course, there is also the question of whether it is in the PM's own interest to create new rivals for her own position.
So much for Remoaner spin on Davis returning to London 'early':
Asked if Davis gave the impression he was not taking the talks seriously, Margaritis Schinas, the commission spokesman, said:
We do not consider this as a problem and we’re not concerned about it. Chief negotiators do not have to be present all the time, these are well-structured talks over a week, so work is ongoing and we do not feel concerned about this.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
The repayment threshold won't be frozen forever will it? There will have had to be a lot of inflation in X amount of years for £100k to be the same as today's average graduate salary. The threshold should have also risen significantly in those X years too.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
The repayment threshold won't be frozen forever will it? There will have had to be a lot of inflation in X amount of years for £100k to be the same as today's average graduate salary. The threshold should have also risen significantly in those X years too.
It does seem an unlikely hypothetical that the repayment threshold would go below the minimum wage, for example.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
Wouldnt they have to extend No 10 to fit all his six children, chaufer and nanny in?
I'm unsure Central London would be large enough to fit his ego.
I am not sure he has much of an ego at all. Certainly there have been plenty of MPs from other parties who consider him a close friend because he has made a point of being as helpful and thoughtful towards them as possible.
I am not sure whether or not he would make a good PM nor whether he could overcome his accent and Etonian background to even have a chance of it. But as a lesson in personal behaviour towards others including his opponents he seems to me to be a perfect example.
Ego: a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.
Yep, fits him to a tee. The positive attributes you mention reflect little on his ego.
Thinking that you are basically an okay person does not equate with having a large ego. Neither does being willing to listen to other people's arguments even when they have a view diametrically opposed to you.
I suspect your reason for believing he has a large ego is because you happen to disagree with a lot of what he believes in and so choose to attack him personally rather than deal with his opinions directly.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
I effing well prefer him to the others (May, Leadsom, Davis). And I'm sure plenty of others would also.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart b) engaging c) straight-talking d) loaded e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
People on the right want a smaller state, till they don't...
Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
For the left three examples of wanting a larger state would be:
State enforcement of the smoking ban Letting agent fees The state guaranteeing jobs for young people
A true libertarian would go for:
No mass surveillance of comms & activities (The counter-argument here is terrorism) That the state has no business in mandating who can and can't marry one another. The state should not be involved in an individual contracting with a medical practioner to end their own suffering. (And on the other side generally) It is down to the Landlord, and not the state as to what activities occur in any of their public houses. The state has no business regulating the contracts between landlords and renters. Creation of jobs is a private business, and not much to do with the state - which generally gets in the way. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a question - Is there anyone in the house who has voted both AGAINST the smoking ban, and also AGAINST criminalisation of legal highs ? An issue where people are generally favour of control of either one or the other
This is a fascinating piece of research, which political campaigners would do well to study: http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114 Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Thank god for the low interest cap on my student loan.
Yeah. I'm on plan1 too. I'm not remotely happy about *benefiting* from it, though.
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
Yeah, the point was made here a few days ago that it is almost as if they were designed never to be paid off.
If that were the case, the tories wouldn't have frozen the threshold.
That cynical little change to the t&c's had massive implications. Now they very much are designed to be (mostly) paid off, even with stagnant real wages. 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* now, but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
But the real value of those extra contributions would be small as the loans would be similarly larger.
The real value of the contributions will be much larger than they are now (at 9% over £21k) thanks to the compounding effect of inflation/wage rises.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
The repayment threshold won't be frozen forever will it? There will have had to be a lot of inflation in X amount of years for £100k to be the same as today's average graduate salary. The threshold should have also risen significantly in those X years too.
It does seem an unlikely hypothetical that the repayment threshold would go below the minimum wage, for example.
given that the interest rate is inflation + 3% inflation won't solve the problem of getting the loans repaid.
I said on here a while back that Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the Tories' answer to Corbyn and now James Delingpole, no less, concurs. And the Speccies beneath the line are lapping it up. This really could happen folks!
Speaking as a leftie politics geek I like watching JRM... He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
He has a vision I'd say. It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
People on the right want a smaller state, till they don't...
Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
For the left three examples of wanting a larger state would be:
State enforcement of the smoking ban Letting agent fees The state guaranteeing jobs for young people
A true libertarian would go for:
No mass surveillance of comms & activities (The counter-argument here is terrorism) That the state has no business in mandating who can and can't marry one another. The state should not be involved in an individual contracting with a medical practioner to end their own suffering. (And on the other side generally) It is down to the Landlord, and not the state as to what activities occur in any of their public houses. The state has no business regulating the contracts between landlords and renters. Creation of jobs is a private business, and not much to do with the state - which generally gets in the way. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a question - Is there anyone in the house who has voted both AGAINST the smoking ban, and also AGAINST criminalisation of legal highs ? An issue where people are generally favour of control of either one or the other
Yes, there is an important division between the authoritarian and libertarian Right.
I'm very much on the libertarian side, I struggle to find a single example of where the State actually assists in a way that couldn't be bettered by individuals and private enterprise.
I think the only exception I'd pick up on in your examples is gay marriage. I'd have voted against that ... but because I don't think the State should have any role in a marriage. Issue a certificate for legal purposes, yes, but 'marriage' should be a purely church thingy.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
I think JRM is very smart actually. I think he is also very wrong about what would be good for Britain.
Were he to somehow be Prime Minister, I don't think it would be long before the British public decided they didn't like his vision for Britain.
Jacob Rees Mogg is extremely well spoken and highly articulate. We tend to equate those traits with being very smart in the UK. See also Dan Hannan and Boris Johnson, for example. It has caused us no end of trouble over the years.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
Yes, you only need to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth in this country to guarantee you rank and privilege no matter how thick you are.
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/health-care-overhaul-collapses-as-two-republican-senators-defect.html
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/887236916244086785
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/mid-season-review-2017.html
Edited extra bit: up early because I've got some other stuff I want to get out of the way.
I take no joy in being proven right about Mrs May.
[I think I might've asked this before, and you might've said Osborne/Cameron].
The plan2 students/graduates have been comprehensively done over by their elders.
The Tories and LD's tore up the generational settlement.
That has consequences.
If I accidentally walked in because it was usually Matzo Anonymous in that room on a Thursday then I'm free to turn around and walk out.
Now if he was doing the same on a street corner with a megaphone I'd expect a policeman to ask him to stop.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/why-jacob-rees-mogg-should-be-the-next-tory-leader/
...
I may have bets on them.
Mr. M, I was aiming for the weekend, and it's done on Tuesday. Honestly.
Anyway, I am off.
What DOES a chap do were the final two to be David Davis and Andrea Leadsom? Invite Dignitas around for a quote?
After a joke that could have gone either way, his next line was "A few in the audience checking the offside flag on that one"
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
Does joining count as being on manoeuvres?
As Davis v Leadsom, a chap would be expected to make David Cameron the write in candidate.
Convenient.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is not the answer!
I must have scrolled past that gig on the Comedy Store website whilst I was looking for Jack Dee,
How many times have you been to see Andrea Leadsom speaking in public? Roughly? It doesn't have to be exact. Just approximately to the nearest "I haven't".
CON 42 (+1)
LAB 43 (=)
LD 7 (=)
UKIP 3 (+1)
GRN 2 (-1)
14th-16th Jul
N=2,046
He knows his stuff and puts his viewpoint across very well.
He's polite too which is also nice.
Check out that UKIP surge.
Even then May could try and soldier on without the confidence of her Cabinet but I doubt it...
Makes sense...
Can you imagine a Jacob Vs Jezza election!
Lordy, lordy those TV debates...
That cynical little tweak of the the t&c's had massive implications.
Now they very much are designed to be paid off, even with stagnant real wages. Currently, 9% on over £21k/year seems like a small *tax* but in 10/20 years, with moderate inflation/wage rises, the amount repaid every month will balloon.
That was the whole point, of course.
Tax cuts and benefit increases for the tory client vote funded by massive future taxes on young, ambitious not-yet-voters.
Short term it was politically smart, long term it's massively toxic and economically inept.
He is indeed a Corbyn WYSIWYG and people are in the mood for that. What's his vision? Well aside from all the inevitable jokes about forcing NHS prescriptions to be presented in Latin, I'm not at all sure.
But he is:
a) very smart
b) engaging
c) straight-talking
d) loaded
e) a bit bonkers
Not the worst set of traits for a PM.
It's a very small state, super sovereign, low tax sort of vision I think.
I even thought he brought the audience in the room on his side.
Readyformogg.org
But as I recall, and to be really boring here - Brown had no children and Blair did so I think they swapped accommodation between the smaller flat above No10 and the larger flat above No11.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3682598/Don-t-judge-ability-breed-Mother-five-ANNE-ATKINS-says-Andrea-Leadsom-playing-fire.html
Last year, plenty of other papers looked at the 'charity' for gay cures which she appears to have favoured. Is Leadsom a mainstream CofE or a happy, clappy, evangelical with interesting views?
I am not sure whether or not he would make a good PM nor whether he could overcome his accent and Etonian background to even have a chance of it. But as a lesson in personal behaviour towards others including his opponents he seems to me to be a perfect example.
Yep, fits him to a tee. The positive attributes you mention reflect little on his ego.
I suspect your reason for believing he has a large ego is because you happen to disagree with a lot of what he believes in and so choose to attack him personally rather than deal with his opinions directly.
eg; If the average graduate salary in X years is £100k, they'll pay 9% on ~80% of their salary, even if £100k in X years only buys you the same amount of stuff as todays average graduate salary.
The t&c's are brutal.
At best Farron tried to hide what he personally thought about sticking things up other gentlemens' bottoms. The killer was the widespread suspicion that it went a step further - he is repressing a personal struggle against an unfulfilled desire for some hot sausage-sausage action.
Asked if Davis gave the impression he was not taking the talks seriously, Margaritis Schinas, the commission spokesman, said:
We do not consider this as a problem and we’re not concerned about it. Chief negotiators do not have to be present all the time, these are well-structured talks over a week, so work is ongoing and we do not feel concerned about this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jul/18/third-of-voters-back-second-referendum-on-brexit-poll-suggests-politics-live
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/887268427643179008
Of course you do.
https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/887289160792518656
Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
Consistently voted against allowing marriage between two people of same sex
Consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life
For the left three examples of wanting a larger state would be:
State enforcement of the smoking ban
Letting agent fees
The state guaranteeing jobs for young people
A true libertarian would go for:
No mass surveillance of comms & activities (The counter-argument here is terrorism)
That the state has no business in mandating who can and can't marry one another.
The state should not be involved in an individual contracting with a medical practioner to end their own suffering.
(And on the other side generally)
It is down to the Landlord, and not the state as to what activities occur in any of their public houses.
The state has no business regulating the contracts between landlords and renters.
Creation of jobs is a private business, and not much to do with the state - which generally gets in the way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a question - Is there anyone in the house who has voted both AGAINST the smoking ban, and also AGAINST criminalisation of legal highs ?
An issue where people are generally favour of control of either one or the other
What's green and smells of pork?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/18/kermit-frog-actor-fired-unacceptable-conduct/
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1703801114
Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness
An appeal to fairness can be a very strong political message - but not, apparently in relation to redistribution.
If Rees Mogg were to be elected Conservative party leader, it would be a very clear signal that the Tories were retreating from the 21st century. Very much like Corbyn's Labour party.
I'm very much on the libertarian side, I struggle to find a single example of where the State actually assists in a way that couldn't be bettered by individuals and private enterprise.
I think the only exception I'd pick up on in your examples is gay marriage. I'd have voted against that ... but because I don't think the State should have any role in a marriage. Issue a certificate for legal purposes, yes, but 'marriage' should be a purely church thingy.
I think he is also very wrong about what would be good for Britain.
Were he to somehow be Prime Minister, I don't think it would be long before the British public decided they didn't like his vision for Britain.