Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
I think it conclusively shows that the vast majority of the money is going to be wasted because the scheme is poorly designed.
But I suppose the other way of looking at it is that a slightly smaller amount of money is about to be wasted than we previously thought.
It's embarrassing because he's made a big play about saying how he is going to spend to keep employment down, and he's now come up with something that is going to cost billions and isn't going to make a difference.
Fair enough, I wouldnt have chosen this particular scheme either. But its neither as bad as you make out nor as good as others claim.
If you judge it on the one off will employers keep someone on because of £1k, then it doesnt work. If you look at it as a form of pumping £5-9bn into the economy relatively cheaply and direct to business rather than via the banking system (where it always seems to disappear and not reach businesses), then it is ok. Jobs will be kept because companies have better balance sheets and the economy is more active not the £1k v redundancy trade off.
From an employers perspective the scheme is attractive and generous. As I and others have pointed out £1k won't be enough to save a job that isn't needed any more, but as a way of pushing cash into businesses that have been through hell it was unexpected and thoughtful.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
Just means they do not want to tie themselves to not being able to not start redundancies before January.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
Trump doesn’t care because it keeps the media talking about him. He’ll start choosing music by people he knows will complain about it.
That gives him about 90% of the music industry to choose from!
Nah 90% applied to George Bush. 99% of musicians do not want to be heard supporting Trump.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
No sane company will take a one off fee in return for a continuing cost...
The Synairgen inhaled interferon trial results look very promising. Another treatment which might make a big difference to outcomes for hospitalised patients - and at first glance, more so than dexamethasone.
The full published results will be very interesting. But to get such a strong result from a very small trial (100 patients) suggests its efficacy is pretty unequivocal.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
Just means they do not want to tie themselves to not being able to not start redundancies before January.
and I suspect the fear is that Christmas will come and go, more stores will be found to be unprofitable and have to go and that scheme suddenly becomes a massive embarrassment as they collect money while another x stores and y members of staff disappear...
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
Cutting employers NI is a similar route, floated pre announcement, that has fewer costs to it than this scheme and probably more benefits. It would perhaps have attracted less press attention however.
I would 100% support abolishing employers NI altogether but again that has the same issue you raised - greater even. Tinkering with employers NI will reduce taxes across the entire economy not specifically those employers that are most at risk due to having been shut down for much of the spring and early summer.
Like-for-like the job retention scheme will get more money per job saved to businesses that were forced to furlough than simply tinkering with NI would. But I would 100% support employers NI being cut or even abolished in the next Budget or next year's Budget.
There are going to be several million unemployed and cutting employers NI would have helped with getting those back into work on top of saving some existing jobs - its more effective because it aids growing and new businesses as well as struggling ones.
I think it would be less effective as it would be much less money. £1000 after 3 months of paying someone is potentially a third of their wages getting repaid . . . . whereas a similar amount spent on Employers NI might maybe knock a penny off per pound's wages.
Long term firms growing and new businesses is a absolutely a very important question but surely it is a question for the next Budget due in just a few months time, not the emergency Summer budget that was aiming to prevent job losses in the first place.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
I think it conclusively shows that the vast majority of the money is going to be wasted because the scheme is poorly designed.
But I suppose the other way of looking at it is that a slightly smaller amount of money is about to be wasted than we previously thought.
It's embarrassing because he's made a big play about saying how he is going to spend to keep employment down, and he's now come up with something that is going to cost billions and isn't going to make a difference.
Fair enough, I wouldnt have chosen this particular scheme either. But its neither as bad as you make out nor as good as others claim.
If you judge it on the one off will employers keep someone on because of £1k, then it doesnt work. If you look at it as a form of pumping £5-9bn into the economy relatively cheaply and direct to business rather than via the banking system (where it always seems to disappear and not reach businesses), then it is ok. Jobs will be kept because companies have better balance sheets and the economy is more active not the £1k v redundancy trade off.
If the objective is just to spend money, then sure it spends money. How much of that gets into the wider economy I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if many companies save it. Or some transfer it offshore to their Luxembourg subsidiaries via dubious accounting arrangements.
I'm judging it based on its stated intention, which is to retain jobs. And for £5-9 billion I think it's going to do very little job retention.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
No sane company will take a one off fee in return for a continuing cost...
For the tenth time there is zero ongoing commitment or cost!
Companies run their business however you want to 31 January On 1 February count how many people were on furlough and are still there. Claim £1000 per person After that run their business however they want.
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
I am saying taxpayers money is being "spaffed" in certain instances, in a direction it is not required. I am not disputing we are up S*** Street, I am just questioning whether in its entirety this is a good use of taxpayers pounds.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
It looks like Biden will pick an African American woman and Rice, with lots of DC and diplomatic experience or Demings, from the key swing state of Florida, now look to be at the top of Biden's VP list if Harris has faded
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
The Synairgen inhaled interferon trial results look very promising. Another treatment which might make a big difference to outcomes for hospitalised patients - and at first glance, more so than dexamethasone.
The full published results will be very interesting.
Would it be fair to say that we are close enough on both vaccines and treatment that it is very likely, 80%+, things like social distancing can be scrapped by this time next year (hopefully sooner)?
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
I am not sure planning is what is stopping you re-doing your kitchen!!
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
I am saying taxpayers money is being "spaffed" in certain instances, in a direction it is not required. I am not disputing we are up S*** Street, I am just questioning whether in its entirety this is a good use of taxpayers pounds.
It is required. We're facing potentially millions unemployed because firms that have lost their trade in the Spring and early Summer are not going to magically get that money back. Getting cash to those firms to ensure their viability is a good idea to keep the economy afloat and thus protect the tax base that pays for the economy in future years. Tying that cash to jobs protected ensures the best value for money since its not throwing more money after businesses that are failing anyway.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
I am not sure planning is what is stopping you re-doing your kitchen!!
LOL true but things like extensions, extra storeys, loft conversions, basements, landscaping etc is what I am driving at. You need permission for some of these.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
Indeed, how many of those "frugal" nations would be on the other side at the moment berating the UK for bringing some realism to the table to score brownie points knowing that the UK veto would be deployed helping them achieve their own aims of reducing the scope and amount of the grants.
The UK was always cast as isolated in these meetings, now we see our position is actually a lot more popular. It's a shame those countries who are making a stand now didn't do so with us when we were in it and instead scored points by opposing us and forcing our leaders to use the veto to protect their goals.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
Do you support stronger inheritance tax generally? Or just for musicians IP?
That's far from embarrassing for Rishi. If large businesses turn down the money because they don't need it, while small businesses take it and survive and keep on their staff because of it . . . then that is a double victory for Rishi. First win - its done what it intended to; second win - it cost even less than he'd planned.
From my perspective it is fantastic. Free money to keep on staff we were intending to keep on A+! As a taxpayer, not so good, maybe a C- or a D+.
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
You're lucky to be in a position that you're intending to keep on your staff anyway . . . not every business is. If your position was universal there'd be no recession and no unemployment coming.
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
My point is the measure is not well targeted, although the intention is faultless.
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
Because we are operating in a pandemic trying to keep the economy alive while borrowing at 0% or even negative interest rates.
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
I am saying taxpayers money is being "spaffed" in certain instances, in a direction it is not required. I am not disputing we are up S*** Street, I am just questioning whether in its entirety this is a good use of taxpayers pounds.
It is required. We're facing potentially millions unemployed because firms that have lost their trade in the Spring and early Summer are not going to magically get that money back. Getting cash to those firms to ensure their viability is a good idea to keep the economy afloat and thus protect the tax base that pays for the economy in future years. Tying that cash to jobs protected ensures the best value for money since its not throwing more money after businesses that are failing anyway.
Your right, I'm wrong. Let's leave it at that. Work to do!
Dominic Harrison, the director of public health in Blackburn with Darwen, said the national tracing system was only managing to reach half of those who had been in close contact with a coronavirus patient in towns with high infection rates in the north-west....
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Day 6 of my ensuite being gutted and redone. OK so we booked this just before the rona, but may as well spend spare time / cash on house stuff. I don't need gadgets, I don't need a car, (I do need a new bike but no stock) - so home improvements it is. Same with my brother.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
Indeed, how many of those "frugal" nations would be on the other side at the moment berating the UK for bringing some realism to the table to score brownie points knowing that the UK veto would be deployed helping them achieve their own aims of reducing the scope and amount of the grants.
The UK was always cast as isolated in these meetings, now we see our position is actually a lot more popular. It's a shame those countries who are making a stand now didn't do so with us when we were in it and instead scored points by opposing us and forcing our leaders to use the veto to protect their goals.
There are certain countries in the European Union whose central long term foreign policy aim should have been keeping Britain inside the club.
I’m not sure she thinks she’s up to the job, but she would certainly be good at the campaign.
Another article that shows the dangers of betting too heavily on something where anyone can be a candidate, and the result is the personal choice of one man.
Dominic Harrison, the director of public health in Blackburn with Darwen, said the national tracing system was only managing to reach half of those who had been in close contact with a coronavirus patient in towns with high infection rates in the north-west....
I've lost track. Have we completely given up on an App now? A friend of my daughter was working for the tracers in Scotland but got so bored of sitting online with nothing to do she has now taken another job.
The Synairgen inhaled interferon trial results look very promising. Another treatment which might make a big difference to outcomes for hospitalised patients - and at first glance, more so than dexamethasone.
The full published results will be very interesting.
Would it be fair to say that we are close enough on both vaccines and treatment that it is very likely, 80%+, things like social distancing can be scrapped by this time next year (hopefully sooner)?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Dropping VAT on home improvements would be a good start, as would measures to encourage self-building and building on brownfield sites.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Dropping VAT on home improvements would be a good start, as would measures to encourage self-building and building on brownfield sites.
You mean dropping VAT on construction work/labour costs?
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Day 6 of my ensuite being gutted and redone. OK so we booked this just before the rona, but may as well spend spare time / cash on house stuff. I don't need gadgets, I don't need a car, (I do need a new bike but no stock) - so home improvements it is. Same with my brother.
I'm selling my electric bike. My balance is a bit iffy these days.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Day 6 of my ensuite being gutted and redone. OK so we booked this just before the rona, but may as well spend spare time / cash on house stuff. I don't need gadgets, I don't need a car, (I do need a new bike but no stock) - so home improvements it is. Same with my brother.
So start getting more people trained NOW. Plumbers, scaffolders, plasterers, brickies....they are going to be needed in spades.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Dropping VAT on home improvements would be a good start, as would measures to encourage self-building and building on brownfield sites.
You mean dropping VAT on construction work/labour costs?
Yes. Construction of new dwellings has no VAT, but extension or refurbishment of existing structures is subject to it. Levelling this playing field encourages extensions, loft conversions, and change-of-use conversions.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Dropping VAT on home improvements would be a good start, as would measures to encourage self-building and building on brownfield sites.
You mean dropping VAT on construction work/labour costs?
Knocking it down to 5% on the labour side of construction would make an awful lot of sense...
Its funny, in my thirty years of cancelled, late and overcrowded carriages, frozen points, leaves on the line and persons under trains, I sometimes mused what the railways would be like if they were not effectively a transport monopoly in the south east.
would the service improve? would they start treating commuters like human being s and not cattle?
I guess we are about to find out.
Meanwhile about 100 companies are pouring billions into the race for electronic air taxis.
The commute is never coming back. Not like it was.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
Dominic Harrison, the director of public health in Blackburn with Darwen, said the national tracing system was only managing to reach half of those who had been in close contact with a coronavirus patient in towns with high infection rates in the north-west....
It's maddening how disastrous it is to not tell local authorities in a timely fashion. This should have been sorted out long before we lifted lockdown.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
It’s accurate if misleading, and John Lewis are taking the view that by by refusing the money the article can’t be written in the first place.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
"Just to move it out of the way: Getting Michelle Obama to run for vice president is a pipe dream."
1. She absolutely shouldn't do it for every personal selfish reason you can think of. 2. It's absurd that the DNC have literally no marquee candidates in the queue. 3. If they are more humble than they were when anointing the Hillary, the DNC should beg the Obamas to do this. Your country needs you etc. How would Barak like to be Secretary of State etc?
Won't happen. Will be ManChild/ForestGump for the RNC and DodgyGreatGramps/RandomTokenMinority for the Dems. How the mighty have fallen. GWB was derided for his folksy style but as anyone who worked with him knows he was smart and considered. Clinton. Obama. Reagan. How have both main parties been reduced to this?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
Dominic Harrison, the director of public health in Blackburn with Darwen, said the national tracing system was only managing to reach half of those who had been in close contact with a coronavirus patient in towns with high infection rates in the north-west....
They'll have start testing door to door, like they did in Leicester.
It isn't really a government failure (well, not in Covid policy, anyway).
On a different topic, it is good to see that another effective treatment has been found. I thought Interferon was horrendously expensive though? Perhaps it isn't now.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So a DJ could be ordered not to play a Beatles song because Paul McCartney doesn't like him? Sounds odd
My understanding on copyright is you have two forms for music.
Composition and master, the composition (lyrics, etc.) is owned by the person/people who wrote it automatically. The master can be owned by a label, or the person who created it.
Taylor Swift is currently re-recording her first five albums to get around the masters being owned by somebody else. But she owns the compositional copyright hence she is allowed to record new masters to which she will then own the copyright.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So should other business owners be allowed to deny service selectively to people they disagree with politically?
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
1) I dont get it - shops closed by the government getting a tax break to help keep people working shouldnt cause any annoyance at all! 2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
John Lewis is also nominally a workers cooperative so the money would in theory benefit the workers -.Hard to see why they would not take it. Strange decision by their executive. Cooperatives (be they workers or consumer ones) are the acceptable face of socialism so any help shoudl be taken imo
The PR would be terrible
Why?
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
PR would be Government gives £x m to John Lewis, owner of Waitrose, despite it having £900m in the bank.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
The reporting angle might not be "fair" (what that?) but if wot you wrote is true (eg. JL owns Waitrose, has money in the bank, etc), what is not accurate about it?
Alternative PR take - they are publicly not committing to retaining everyone till January.
I will bet that any film that fires a bunch of people, but tries to claim the money for those employees they *don't bin*, will get roasted in the press.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
Just means they do not want to tie themselves to not being able to not start redundancies before January.
They could make 99% of the people on furlough redundant this summer and still make a claim for the 1% still there in February.
Companies are not stopped from claiming the bonus if they make redundancies despite this being a widespread belief. They can choose whatever headcount suits them and then still claim per employee.
If the government are offering this bonus (and I dont think its the best way frankly of supporting the economy or jobs) then companies (especially Not for Profit ones/cooperatives ) should take it and give it to their workers -Its not as if John Lewis dont have low paid staff (as do all retail) .- they also have a mechanism in their bonus scheme for staff to pay it easily
Which would be negating the purpose of the scheme.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So should other business owners be allowed to deny service selectively to people they disagree with politically?
Yes, surely it is up to them to decide how to maximise their revenue and any association with politics could impact that revenue.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Dropping VAT on home improvements would be a good start, as would measures to encourage self-building and building on brownfield sites.
You mean dropping VAT on construction work/labour costs?
Yes. Construction of new dwellings has no VAT, but extension or refurbishment of existing structures is subject to it. Levelling this playing field encourages extensions, loft conversions, and change-of-use conversions.
We subsidise the creation of dwellings by means of zero-rating (not exemtpion).
I see the case for 5%, which is already the case for certain qualifying works to dwellings.
I think removing it from the VAT ecosystem entirely would encourage a wild west.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So a DJ could be ordered not to play a Beatles song because Paul McCartney doesn't like him? Sounds odd
That has always been the case - the Beatles have always tightly control how their music is used and license, Queen and Bowie were always far more open in letting their music to be used for almost anything..
Mr. Sandpit, one of the things (maybe the only thing, actually) that put me off the Pirate Party was the desire to slash royalty terms.
It can take a long time to write stuff, and if I get around to writing another book, and it sells well, I think it's fair expect any sales from my earlier stuff to lead to some income.
Writers earn sod all (the creative average is under $10,000 a year), and reducing the potential for income even further isn't great.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
ABBA reportedly got really annoyed with Theresa May for using ‘Dancing Queen’ at the Tory party conference. Amusingly, however, because Alistair Campbell tried to persuade them to publicly protest about breach of copyright, they didn’t take it further as they didn’t want to be involved in a party political dispute.
I dont know how this works but surely if music is supplied under licence ,as long as a user pays for it, the content owner has given up the right to say who can play it. Cannot have it both ways
Just because music is available under a licence that doesn't stop the copyright owner controlling who can licence it.
So a DJ could be ordered not to play a Beatles song because Paul McCartney doesn't like him? Sounds odd
Don't you just start by asking them nicely not to play your music? That would work in most cases in order to avoid the obvious folow-up which would be to announce publicly your disapproval.
Beyond that, there is the law but it's complex, expensive and full of contradictions. Only a few serious cases would get that far, I expect.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Why is it embarrassing? Its a sign of a government business partnership working well for me. Rightmove makes sense given their very low number of employees vs market cap but John Lewis is very strange, would have thought they needed the money and with their shops closed by the govt were absolutely the justified target of such measures.
John Lewis are frightened that:-
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it. 2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
Surely the big 'hidden' is that by taking the money firms take back the employees, and one of the big assumptions that appears to be being made is that everything will go back to where it was before. I'm quite certain that that won't be the case. For consumer-facing industries and for those which don't require group working, anyway.
Taking the money and then laying off employees anyway is indeed the public relations disaster they are wanting to avoid.
The flip side to this is surely it is obvious John Lewis will have a smaller workforce by the end of next year without taking a £14m grant than they would if they took the grant? If customers and employees want jobs protected surely they would approve of taking the grant?
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
There’s no connection in this case
JLP is big enough and ugly enough to design its business how it wants. It’s not short of cash so it’s not going to restructure now, take the cash and restructure again in 1: months. That kills morale.
And the £1k doesn’t make it worth keeping jobs in the long tunic they don’t make a return.
So it says thanks but no thanks and executed on its strategic plan.
That has always been the case - the Beatles have always tightly control how their music is used and license, Queen and Bowie were always far more open in letting their music to be used for almost anything..
Vanilla Ice under pressure/ice ice baby riff springs to mind - not sure Queen gave permission for that though.
If people are going to change their behaviour permanently, as now looks very likely, they are going to spend the money they saved on coffee and trains somewhere else.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
Day 6 of my ensuite being gutted and redone. OK so we booked this just before the rona, but may as well spend spare time / cash on house stuff. I don't need gadgets, I don't need a car, (I do need a new bike but no stock) - so home improvements it is. Same with my brother.
My mate works for a business selling and distributing DIY products. Revenue at 4x normal for the past month.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
70 years still isn't long enough when you are talking about a character that say is in continual use.
Copyright length is really a battle between Disney for Mickey Mouse and co (and to a less extent Warner Brothers / DC comics with Superman / Batman) trying to retain control of their characters and Governments trying to ensure things aren't locked away for ever.
Its funny, in my thirty years of cancelled, late and overcrowded carriages, frozen points, leaves on the line and persons under trains, I sometimes mused what the railways would be like if they were not effectively a transport monopoly in the south east.
would the service improve? would they start treating commuters like human being s and not cattle?
I guess we are about to find out.
Meanwhile about 100 companies are pouring billions into the race for electronic air taxis.
The commute is never coming back. Not like it was.
Its a long time since I had to commute into London, and after an initial month of tube/train I abandoned it for the bus. I hear your comments about cattle and its true. But whats the alternative? Many routes running 12 car trains on a very regular frequency. Can't run more trains. Can't run longer trains. What they can do is have less punters - ok so hardly any punters like now means they all need more subsidy, but at least people now have space...
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
That has always been the case - the Beatles have always tightly control how their music is used and license, Queen and Bowie were always far more open in letting their music to be used for almost anything..
Vanilla Ice under pressure/ice ice baby riff springs to mind - not sure Queen gave permission for that though.
They did, all samples have to be cleared in advance, there’s a long history of various dance records getting binned or re-recorded because samples couldn’t get cleared. I’ve got a few DJ-only vinyl ‘white label’ recordings that were never released.
I’m not sure she thinks she’s up to the job, but she would certainly be good at the campaign.
Another article that shows the dangers of betting too heavily on something where anyone can be a candidate, and the result is the personal choice of one man.
Indeed. The rational thing for me and many others would be to cash out now but in these corona-ridden times there is nothing on telly so at least the VP selection gives me something to look at. The wait for Biden to piss or get off the pot is frustrating though.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Yeah but cure cancer and you never have to pay another restaurant bill, whereas the guy who wrote the Smash potato jingle can't go anywhere without a disguise.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha definitely had more than 1 hit - they even had a Bond Theme tune (albeit for The Living Daylights)
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I was just pointing out that the two issues are completely separate. I oppose the recent tendency regularly to extend copyright lifetimes. Author’s lifetime plus ten years would be as far as I’d go (again, FWIW).
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
Its funny, in my thirty years of cancelled, late and overcrowded carriages, frozen points, leaves on the line and persons under trains, I sometimes mused what the railways would be like if they were not effectively a transport monopoly in the south east.
would the service improve? would they start treating commuters like human being s and not cattle?
I guess we are about to find out.
Meanwhile about 100 companies are pouring billions into the race for electronic air taxis.
The commute is never coming back. Not like it was.
Its a long time since I had to commute into London, and after an initial month of tube/train I abandoned it for the bus. I hear your comments about cattle and its true. But whats the alternative? Many routes running 12 car trains on a very regular frequency. Can't run more trains. Can't run longer trains. What they can do is have less punters - ok so hardly any punters like now means they all need more subsidy, but at least people now have space...
And that's the problem with Central London. It looks great, and does great business for some, though you have to wonder who is actually harvesting the value added.
But it only works because people are willing to pay a high price in terms of long, unpleasant commutes and overpriced accommodation. And the question for what happens next is how much that willingness is real, and how much it's a treadmill that people stay on because they haven't felt able to step off.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha definitely had more than 1 hit - they even had a Bond Theme tune (albeit for The Living Daylights)
Downing Street in ‘panic mode’ on Union as PM heads for Scotland
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
A-ha definitely had more than 1 hit - they even had a Bond Theme tune (albeit for The Living Daylights)
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
50 years perhaps ?
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
Write a jingle for a shampoo commercial - keep the rights for 70 years. Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years. Logical?
Actually it's 'worse' than that. Registering the patent has to be done quite early in the process. Consequently a pharmaceutical company gets, IIRC about half of those 20 to actually recover on it's investment. And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
And even worse if they’re developing a novel antibiotic. Even if it works, policy is to restrict its use as much as possible, so that it can reserves only for cases where current antibiotics no longer work. Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
I think 70 years but non transferable is fair. 20 years isn't fair to the artist, I know a guy who had a number one hit and nothing else. It's the bedrock of his income plus a few albums here and there and some DJ nights. If you reduced copyright to 20 years he'd be bankrupt.
Do you know Chesney Hawkes!
I imagine it is Nik Kershaw's retirement that is being supported by that song.
The list of one-hit-wonders is long indeed. Here's a small sample:
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996) "Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981) "Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982) "I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991) "Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982) "Who Let the Dogs Out?" ... "Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990) "Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
Nice bit of leaver inferiority complex paranoia there Philip! Nationalism is a complex type of psychology isn't it? On the one hand there is the outward appearance of arrogant superiority and national exceptionalism, but underneath just inferiority, anguish and grievance. No wonder you have an empathy for Scottish nationalism. UKIP/Brexit Party/Populist Johnsonians are all so similar to the Nats in Scotland.
So it looks like the Dutch have taken our place as the most hated nation in the EU. Very glad we're not in this summit, the PM would be there signing the UK up to £120bn in new spending for which we would get absolutely nothing in return. How much is that per week?
The Guardian calls it the most acrimonious EU summit of all time. How can that be, now that we are leaving?
Left not leaving.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
Nice bit of leaver inferiority complex paranoia there Philip! Nationalism is a complex type of psychology isn't it? On the one hand there is the outward appearance of arrogant superiority and national exceptionalism, but underneath just inferiority, anguish and grievance. No wonder you have an empathy for Scottish nationalism. UKIP/Brexit Party/Populist Johnsonians are all so similar to the Nats in Scotland.
No clue what you're ranting about but you are definitely projecting there.
I was joking but you've clearly had a nerve touched.
Neil Young has been similarly pissed by Trump's use of his music.
Happens all the time, politicians using music by people who don't like them. I get that annoys the musician and they'll say something, but it also really is no big deal.
For politics it is a big deal. Why should a musician have to put up with a politician using his/her song, when he/she is not supportive of said politician.
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
If it is available to license, then really the musician has no leg to stand on.
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
That would depend on the terms of the license.
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
Copyright on sound recordings now lasts for 70 years, so in many cases grandchildren of artists are still receiving cheques.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
For everthing else it is life + 70 years which is even worse. Write a book at age 20 live till you are 100 and it takes 150 years to get into the public domain which defeats the whole point of copyright which was a deal between creators and the people whereby they got a monopoly for originally I believe 14 years as an incentive to create before the work became public domain.
The one that *really* goes up my nose is the 4% artists' tax on resales of any artwork that has already been sold once. Is it called the Artists' Resale Right?
Comments
https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/07/job-cuts-john-lewis-shuts-down-8-stores-reopens-9-lockdown/
Or can people really not make that connection between jobs retained and cash in the bank?
Imagine If you had written a world famous song and Jeremy Corbyn/Victor Orban* was using that song for their political gain.
*delete as appicable.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/michelle-obama-for-vice-president.html
Another treatment which might make a big difference to outcomes for hospitalised patients - and at first glance, more so than dexamethasone.
The full published results will be very interesting. But to get such a strong result from a very small trial (100 patients) suggests its efficacy is pretty unequivocal.
Long term firms growing and new businesses is a absolutely a very important question but surely it is a question for the next Budget due in just a few months time, not the emergency Summer budget that was aiming to prevent job losses in the first place.
How much of that gets into the wider economy I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if many companies save it. Or some transfer it offshore to their Luxembourg subsidiaries via dubious accounting arrangements.
I'm judging it based on its stated intention, which is to retain jobs. And for £5-9 billion I think it's going to do very little job retention.
Companies run their business however you want to 31 January
On 1 February count how many people were on furlough and are still there.
Claim £1000 per person
After that run their business however they want.
Because they no longer have their black sheep whipping boy to pin all frustrations on.
This is an interesting list:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-musicians-who-objected-to-politicians-using-their-songs-a8591351.html
I'm more inclined to ask why we have laws that allow grandchildren of artists to freeload off their grandparents' work for up to a century when they have not earned the money. Far bigger issue.
The government has to find out where, and let those industries boom.
In my case, for example, its on home improvements. After all, if youy spend more time at home why not make it a nicer environment?
This industry could go crazy if the government does, indeed, revise the planning laws.
The UK was always cast as isolated in these meetings, now we see our position is actually a lot more popular. It's a shame those countries who are making a stand now didn't do so with us when we were in it and instead scored points by opposing us and forcing our leaders to use the veto to protect their goals.
Test and trace failures risk exponential case growth in England, official warns
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/19/test-and-trace-failures-risk-exponential-coronavirus-case-growth-in-england-official-warns
Failures of the government’s test-and-trace system are risking an exponential growth of coronavirus in hotspots across England, a director of public health has warned.
Dominic Harrison, the director of public health in Blackburn with Darwen, said the national tracing system was only managing to reach half of those who had been in close contact with a coronavirus patient in towns with high infection rates in the north-west....
Another article that shows the dangers of betting too heavily on something where anyone can be a candidate, and the result is the personal choice of one man.
It’s not fair or accurate but since when has that bothered our press?
And I'm not really sure where grandchildren come in to this particular issue ?
“David Cameron, stop saying that you like The Smiths, no you don’t. I forbid you to like it.”
would the service improve? would they start treating commuters like human being s and not cattle?
I guess we are about to find out.
Meanwhile about 100 companies are pouring billions into the race for electronic air taxis.
The commute is never coming back. Not like it was.
There’s a lobby of public domain advocates trying to make copyright terms much shorter, such as 20 years, but they’re campaigning against Disney and Sony.
This should have been sorted out long before we lifted lockdown.
They figure that if they’re characterised as not ‘doing their bit’, the public will be less likely to stick with them over Amazon.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1285130060584886272
2. It's absurd that the DNC have literally no marquee candidates in the queue.
3. If they are more humble than they were when anointing the Hillary, the DNC should beg the Obamas to do this. Your country needs you etc. How would Barak like to be Secretary of State etc?
Won't happen. Will be ManChild/ForestGump for the RNC and DodgyGreatGramps/RandomTokenMinority for the Dems. How the mighty have fallen. GWB was derided for his folksy style but as anyone who worked with him knows he was smart and considered. Clinton. Obama. Reagan. How have both main parties been reduced to this?
It isn't really a government failure (well, not in Covid policy, anyway).
On a different topic, it is good to see that another effective treatment has been found. I thought Interferon was horrendously expensive though? Perhaps it isn't now.
Composition and master, the composition (lyrics, etc.) is owned by the person/people who wrote it automatically. The master can be owned by a label, or the person who created it.
Taylor Swift is currently re-recording her first five albums to get around the masters being owned by somebody else. But she owns the compositional copyright hence she is allowed to record new masters to which she will then own the copyright.
I will bet that any film that fires a bunch of people, but tries to claim the money for those employees they *don't bin*, will get roasted in the press.
I see the case for 5%, which is already the case for certain qualifying works to dwellings.
I think removing it from the VAT ecosystem entirely would encourage a wild west.
It can take a long time to write stuff, and if I get around to writing another book, and it sells well, I think it's fair expect any sales from my earlier stuff to lead to some income.
Writers earn sod all (the creative average is under $10,000 a year), and reducing the potential for income even further isn't great.
Beyond that, there is the law but it's complex, expensive and full of contradictions. Only a few serious cases would get that far, I expect.
If you've written a hit song at 18, that takes you through with royalties to 68 which is the retirement age (I think).
70 seems a bit long.
JLP is big enough and ugly enough to design its business how it wants. It’s not short of cash so it’s not going to restructure now, take the cash and restructure again in 1: months. That kills morale.
And the £1k doesn’t make it worth keeping jobs in the long tunic they don’t make a return.
So it says thanks but no thanks and executed on its strategic plan.
Revenue at 4x normal for the past month.
Copyright length is really a battle between Disney for Mickey Mouse and co (and to a less extent Warner Brothers / DC comics with Superman / Batman) trying to retain control of their characters and Governments trying to ensure things aren't locked away for ever.
Find a cure for cancer - keep the rights for 20 years.
Logical?
More contentious is where the song isn’t directly sampled but is very similar to an existing recording, then we get Marvin Gaye’s estate sueing Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the melody in Blurred Lines.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/10/blurred-lines-pharrell-robin-thicke-copied-marvin-gaye
"Macarena" – Los del Río (1996)
"Tainted Love" – Soft Cell (1981)
"Come on Eileen" – Dexys Midnight Runners (1982)
"I'm Too Sexy" – Right Said Fred (1991)
"Mickey" – Toni Basil (1982)
"Who Let the Dogs Out?" ...
"Ice Ice Baby" – Vanilla Ice (1990)
"Take On Me” - A-ha (1985)
There's a lot of overlap here with Worst Singles Ever. Come on Eileen is particularly awful. Far from getting royalties, the band should be fined for each public playing.
And before one says 'big Pharma... tough'....... as is very tempting......... a significant part of research actually produces nothing with a practical use. "Seemed like a good idea at the time' applies!
I oppose the recent tendency regularly to extend copyright lifetimes.
Author’s lifetime plus ten years would be as far as I’d go (again, FWIW).
Lightning in a bottle.
But it only works because people are willing to pay a high price in terms of long, unpleasant commutes and overpriced accommodation. And the question for what happens next is how much that willingness is real, and how much it's a treadmill that people stay on because they haven't felt able to step off.
Here’s a list with the definition of a number 1 hit and no other chart entries - a few singalong drunk wedding songs in there!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_one-hit_wonders_on_the_UK_Singles_Chart
The Prime Minister will highlight economic support from the UK Treasury during the crisis, with his government subsidising the wages of nearly a third of Scottish workers.
Mr Johnson’s handling of the pandemic has cost him support, with his net approval rating on the crisis lagging 99 points behind that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, at -39 points to her +60.
... a Cabinet source told the Sunday Times: “Michael [Gove] is in panic mode about the Union and Boris is in irritated mode.”
... the Press and Journal reported that Lord McInnes, the director of the Scottish Conservative Party, will brief the Cabinet this week alongside polling guru James Kanagasooriam, who worked on the party’s 2016 Holyrood campaign...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/downing-street-panic-mode-union-pm-heads-scotland-2918068
It is this transactional Unionist thinking that is killing the Union. England can’t buy Scotland.
The Sun Always Shines on TV was another hit.
Which is why most pharmas have abandoned the sector completely.
OTOH Shaddap Your face - Joe Dolce......
I was joking but you've clearly had a nerve touched.
A complete scam.