politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The one way for LAB to close down it’s antisemitism crisis is

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, this is nice*:
https://twitter.com/jnickelson15/status/980508790306074624

Edited extra bit: ahem. *not very

Scott_P said:

Afternoon all

Re Netflix, et al...

The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.

I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.

Scott_P said:

Afternoon all

Re Netflix, et al...

The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.

Scott_P said:

Afternoon all

Re Netflix, et al...

The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.

I watched The Circle last week. Interesting, given the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica headlines recently.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

Afternoon all

Re Netflix, et al...

The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.

An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.

I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.

Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes.

The best series of modern times, by far, is Big Little Lies. It was only five episodes. Sadly the producers are threatening a second series, despite the fact that they have no further novel to screenplay.

They should leave well alone.

Andrew said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...

That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)

kle4 said:

Andrew said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...

That's probably dictated by the insane episode cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger.

I was stunned to see a list that showed The Crown costs more to make per episode than Game of Thrones. I know there's a huge cast, and its still a period piece, but with all the effects work,production work and filming in so many different locations I am surprised. Despite my own thoughts on Westworld being more negative than positive, as a visual spectacle it is breathtaking.

Morris_Dancer said:

Well, quite.

Off-topic: got a small amount to spend from a Christmas Waterstones card. If I had a thousand pounds I'd be able to buy all the things I want... as an aside, astounded by the absolute predominance of WWII in the Military History section. Must be 95% from the last century (in bestseller's).

I am open to suggestions, incidentally, if anyone has particularly fantastic books they've enjoyed.

SouthamObserver said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

houndtang said:

Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.

That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!

Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.

In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.

In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens?
The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.

To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.

The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.

If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

viewcode said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Well, quite.

Off-topic: got a small amount to spend from a Christmas Waterstones card. If I had a thousand pounds I'd be able to buy all the things I want... as an aside, astounded by the absolute predominance of WWII in the Military History section. Must be 95% from the last century (in bestseller's).

I am open to suggestions, incidentally, if anyone has particularly fantastic books they've enjoyed.

Oh Lord. OK, looking at my bookshelves...

Max Hastings

Catastrophe: ISBN 978-0307597052
Overlord: ISBN 0-671-46029-3
Armageddon: ISBN 0-333-90836-8
Nemesis: ISBN 0-00-721982-2
Bomber Command: ISBN 0-7181-1603-8
Das Reich: ISBN 0-03-057059-X
Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord: ISBN 978-0-00-726367-7
All Hell Let Loose: ISBN 978-0-00-733809-2
The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8
The Battle for the Falklands: ISBN 0-7181-2228-3
Warriors: ISBN 978-0-00-719756-9
The Secret War: ISBN 9780007503742

Others

"Britain's War Machine" by David Edgerton
"Command and Control" by Eric Schlosser
"World Order" by Henry Kissinger
"To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914-1949" by Ian Kershaw
"Britain Since 1918" by David Marquand
"The Blunders of our Governments" by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe
"The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver
"Superforecasting" by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner
"Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA" by Amy Shira Teitel

FF43 said:

I hate that mural but funnily enough I don't think it intends to be anti-Semitic. The bankers manipulating the world include Arab and South Asian stereotypes as well as the Jewish one. No-one bothers about potential equal opportunities expressions of racism in that image. It doesn't take a lot of sensitivity to understand the same iconography was used by Nazis who murdered millions of people. The mural has no place in civilised society.

malcolmg said:

Anazina said:

SandyRentool said:

I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.

Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?

Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

I hate that mural but funnily enough I don't think it intends to be anti-Semitic. The bankers manipulating the world include Arab and South Asian stereotypes as well as the Jewish one. No-one bothers about potential equal opportunities expressions of racism in that image. It doesn't take a lot of sensitivity to understand the same iconography was used by Nazis who murdered millions of people. The mural has no place in civilised society.

But in a sense you're missing the point. It's not the fact that he defended it that bothers me, or at least, not so much. Somebody who is consistently in favour of free speech could defend it quite legitimately.

It's the gratuitous reference to the Rothschilds and the implications of that that blows his defence out of the water.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

DavidL said:

This is not going to help consumption/growth in the next few quarters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43587882/why-your-pay-packet-could-soon-get-a-little-bit-smaller

Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.

We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.

It's already been delayed once - was supposed to go up from the currently paltry amounts originally in Oct 17... needs to happen.

https://www.retirement-planner.co.uk/13866/auto-enrolment-contributions-delay

JohnLilburne said:

SouthamObserver said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

houndtang said:

Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.

That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!

Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.

In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.

In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens?
The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.

To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.

The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.

If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.

AlastairMeeks said:

I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.

The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.

tlg86 said:

Can someone explain to me why South Africa are still batting?

EDIT: Apparently it's because some of the bowlers are injured.

ydoethur said:

South AFrica now have a small lead. 603.

However, they also apparently have no seam bowlers at all which may be why they're batting on.

Anazina said:

There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.

Anazina said:

Nigelb said:

Anazina said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

Afternoon all

Re Netflix, et al...

The Man in the High Castle suffers from being a great idea for a film, but the producers suddenly found they need to fill another 20 hours of screentime. The whole antique dealer storyline could be cut, for example.

An interesting point. TV shows in america have increasingly moved away from needing 22 episodes per season since Netflix came along, your streaming services seem to hew closer to the cable model of 10-13 as an average, and that is a good thing, but while there's lots of movies that seem like they would work better as tv shows, like you with Man in the High Castle I find plenty of shows are just too stretched out even at 10-13 episodes per season. Every single Marvel Netflix show is a case in point, in that whatever their good parts, I've not seen a single one that could not be 3-4 episodes shorter.

I certainly don't bemoan that some shows are better being binge watched, I think it works for some shows and not others, but there is still this problem in identifying how many episodes a story actually needs, and you end up with even some really good stuff either dragging on, or severely condensed.

Spot on. 5-6 episodes should be enough to tell most stories. One of the greatest storytelling epics of our time, The Godfather, would still only fill 10 episodes...

Up to a point.
The Korean drama I recommended in the previous thread, Misaeng, stretches over 21 hour plus episodes, and I wouldn't lose any except perhaps the last one (for some reason the Koreans seem to have a strong tendency to be shit at ending stuff).
On the other hand, they tend not to produce second seasons to even their big hits,

But I'd agree that some stories need space to tell, and others benefit from condensing.

There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.

alex. said:

viewcode said:

malcolmg said:

I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.

I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.

Wasn't the Korean War an example (the only?) of a Security Council Veto (Soviet's) being over-ruled by a vote in the General Assembly?

viewcode said:

Anazina said:

There are exceptions of course (I have never seen Misaeng) but the simple truth is that very few modern series are worth their run time. The vast majority are flabby from the start, or else extended to breaking point.

Indeed. If there had never been a "True Detective" series 2, we would have extremely fond memories of "True Detective" series 1. I think "Westworld" series 2 might also be such a mistake.

Danny565 said:

JohnLilburne said:

SouthamObserver said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

houndtang said:

Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.

That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!

Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.

In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.

In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens?
The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.

To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.

The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.

If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.

And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?

OldKingCole said:

alex. said:

viewcode said:

malcolmg said:

I am reading this at the, moment The Korean War: ISBN 0-671-52823-8. Excellent book and shows the incompetence of the US in the whole debacle.

I didn't realise how important were the politics of the time. At that time the UN Security Council's China seat was held by Taiwan and the Soviet Union was boycotting it as a result. Had either Big China or the USSR been on the council, things might have been different.

Wasn't the Korean War an example (the only?) of a Security Council Veto (Soviet's) being over-ruled by a vote in the General Assembly?

I remember...... I was in my early teens at the time .......everyone’s surprise at how the entire course of the war was reversed by the Inchon landings. The Allies were on the verge of being pushed right out of Korea before they took place.

Danny565 said:

JohnLilburne said:

SouthamObserver said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

houndtang said:

Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.

That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!

Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.

In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.

In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens?
The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.

To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.

The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.

If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.

And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?

JohnLilburne said:

Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.

Recidivist said:

Danny565 said:

JohnLilburne said:

SouthamObserver said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

tlg86 said:

SouthamObserver said:

houndtang said:

Labours travails would be almost funny if these clowns hadn't got - and continue to poll - a still unbelievable 40% of the vote last year.

That's how bad the Tories are. They cannot be ensured of a majority even when faced with an institutionally anti-Semitic party nostalgic for the 1970s, led by a quasi-Marxist who backs any murderous regime or cause as long as it is anti-US, anti-UK or anti-Israel. God help us!!

Nah, it shows how bad the people who would still vote Labour are.

In which case we're still buggered as they are nearly half the country. But I am a bit more generous than you. I think a lot of voters see a Tory party led by incompetents who have no interest in anything except personal advancement, who merrily dogwhistle to get the votes of racists, xenophobes and bigots, who are nostalgic for a time that has gone and will never come again and who have no idea how to tackle the country's problems. They choose to vote against such a party.

In that case - why would those people not vote for the Lib Dems? Or the Greens?
The Lib Dems lost seats to Labour last time as well.

To me it's obvious - the people voting Labour don't believe Corbyn is anti-semitic or that he supports murderous regimes.

The alternative is that 40% of the country likes anti-semitism and murderous dictatorships.

If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

If you have willingly associated and campaigned with anti-semites for years, you can hardly not be anti-semitic yourself. As a minimum, it shows that Corbyn doesn't think it is very important.

And what does it say about the Conservatives that they have not, to date, apologised for an anti-Muslim mayoral campaign in 2016?

And nobody replies....

CarlottaVance said:

Janan Ganesh:

It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.

If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands).
https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

DavidL said:

This is not going to help consumption/growth in the next few quarters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43587882/why-your-pay-packet-could-soon-get-a-little-bit-smaller

Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.

We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.

DavidL said:

Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.

CarlottaVance said:

Janan Ganesh:

It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.

If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands).
https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

DavidL said:

Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.

kle4 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Janan Ganesh:

It takes the perspective of physical distance to remember that Theresa May’s survival is astonishing. The British are blasé about it, having seen her withstand five existential crises in less than a year: a bungled election, a wooden response to the Grenfell Tower fire, a hoarse speech on a disintegrating stage, a double cabinet resignation last November and a failed attempt to tweak the same cabinet.

If anything is new, it is that her shopworn premiership can now aspire to more than mere survival. The change is recent and subject to reversal, but she seems to have broken the cycle of crisis and narrow escape to achieve, if not comfort, then at least relief from rolling conjecture about her own position. The Labour party is distracted. Mr Johnson no longer stalks her in plain sight like a salivating dauphin. Betting exchanges overrate the enthusiasm of Conservative MPs for the backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg (another eccentric of surprising renown in distant lands).
https://www.ft.com/content/d4207bf8-364e-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

I wouldn't say all five of those were existential crises. He is right that for a time at least May has managed to break free from the seeming cycle of of crisis, and hopefully she can build on that to get stuff done.

DavidL said:

Many, including myself, expressed reservations about Goldsmith's campaign for Mayor at the time and grave disappointment that he was selected and then elected for Richmond. I would not have voted for him.

A point conveniently ignored. As with Brexit issues you then get people saying 'No one complained about x' when they bloody well did (and shows the demands to be nonsense posturing, since clearly meeting the demand is not wanted).

Khan seems to stir up more antipathy than is warranted though.

JohnLilburne said:

Danny565 said:

JohnLilburne said:

Yes much of that campaign was poor, although it was largely a half-arsed attempt at targeting specific ethnic groups, which is obviously something the Left has done for years. I don't think it was anti-Muslim though. Now back to the topic on hand... the Labour leader being a fellow-traveller of anti-semites.

If that mural is anti-semitic, then the mayoral campaign was anti-Muslim (I think both are/were).

The mayoral campaign said Khan was "dangerous" and a potential terrorist sympathiser, on the basis of nothing whatsoever. There was even a newspaper article by Zac Goldsmith which was illustrated by a picture of the 7/7 bombings. It was based on racist stereotypes of Muslims, just as that mural is based on racist stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, nefarious and manipulative. You can't condemn one without condemning the other, unless you're a total hypocrite.

And again, while Corbyn's response to the antisemitism has been poor, and his "apology" was very mealy-mouthed, there has not even been any attempt at an apology from the Conservatives for the mayoral campaign, nor any punishments given to the people who ran that campaign.

So many straw men. The argument was I believe that Khan was too friendly with Muslim radicals and extremists and therefore likely to be too soft on prospective terrorists. Poorly made, I agree. In any case I am not asking for Corbyn's apology. I believe that most politicians' apologies are worthless. When they say they are sorry for past actions deliberately carried out, they are mostly lying. I am simply pointing out that the Labour leader appears to be an anti-semite. Zac is unlikely to run for important office again. Corbyn wants to be the next Prime Minister.

OldKingCole said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

This is not going to help consumption/growth in the next few quarters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43587882/why-your-pay-packet-could-soon-get-a-little-bit-smaller

Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.

We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.

This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.

We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.

Consume less indeed. It’s fine for those with above average incomes, but for the Just About Managing that’s up there with, as was remarked the other day ‘let them eat cake!’
And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Andrew said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...

That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)

You only have to look at the trailers for an indication of the crazy amount of money they spend.

I have to go work, but I need to point out that there is an argument that Netflix is in financial trouble. It is burning through a shit-ton of cash in an attempt to capture the whole market but that model doesn't always work. See http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/03/blind-item-8-details-details-mr-hedge.html

Pro_Rata said:

malcolmg said:

MarkHopkins said:

malcolmg said:

Anazina said:

SandyRentool said:

I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.

Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?

Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.

"its raining up North"

Is that news?

was sunny yesterday

I have to say that I don't think today's snow is newsworthy in terms of disruption - Easter Monday, the usual selection of mountain passes and some problems in a small number of towns and high suburbs tight to the Pennines doesn't do it. Disruption should be king in news reporting.

We've had a bad winter here, every main bit of snow going has affected West Yorkshire this time around (not usually so, the Vale of York and eastwards normally sees more than us), but to be fair to London, we do generally get a mention. The day the news just plain missed us was back in January when the whole county ground to a halt for about 8 hours one evening rush hour, but because BBC Scotland had been put in charge of the story, we were completely overlooked. London simply wouldn't have done that.

RoyalBlue said:

OldKingCole said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

This is not going to help consumption/growth in the next few quarters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43587882/why-your-pay-packet-could-soon-get-a-little-bit-smaller

Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.

We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.

This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.

We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.

Consume less indeed. It’s fine for those with above average incomes, but for the Just About Managing that’s up there with, as was remarked the other day ‘let them eat cake!’
And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!

We’re talking about giving up one year’s disposable income growth, which is already near its record high, in exchange for greater security in old age.

Zero-hours contracts represent 3% of the labour force. Britain is not a nation of starving day labourers, whatever the Labour Party and its acolytes say.

Could we be wealthier? Of course. Will we be wealthier by constantly putting short-term needs ahead of the long term? Absolutely not.