politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris edging down in the Dem VP betting with Susan Ric

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

Good piece from Slate on Michelle Obama being the VP nominee

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/michelle-obama-for-vice-president.html

'Liked' it. But I still don't think she'll do it.

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.

If you enjoyed Between the Lines, I’d recommend the Korean drama ‘Stranger’ on Netflix.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

As a shareholder in popcorn manufacturers it's a gift that keeps on giving..

My signature on another forum reads - "only at clientco for the entertainment", for Brexit that is equally true but I write software so it really doesn't impact me...

OldKingCole said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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!

Yes but there is a logical reason to want medical patents to lapse, it allows a good few years making a decent buck but then allows generics to cheaply provide lifesaving medicine.

Whereas does nobodies life depends upon listening to James singing Sit Down out of copyright.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

The EU are currently arguing over who pays a €750bn bailout bill.

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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.

How can something be accurate but misleading?

You're smarter than that. Things taken out of context can very easily be both accurate and misleading.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/RichardGCorbett/status/1284594637219475456

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

state_go_away said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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)

So did most of that list.
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

That's a great list with some memorably dire efforts. I particularly loathed Sugar Sugar, the product of bored session men hanging around in a recording studio waiting for someone to show up.

When Kenny Everett was in his pomp as a successful DJ he once conducted a poll of Worst Ever Singles. Here's the worthy winner. Nervous Norvous - Transfusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThzfNq6BCUQ

What amused me most about the poll was that whilst he didn't actually claim top spot, Jess Conrad had about six entries in the top twenty, so in terms of consistency he had a fair claim to be worst crooner of the era.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

Good piece from Slate on Michelle Obama being the VP nominee

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/michelle-obama-for-vice-president.html

'Liked' it. But I still don't think she'll do it.

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.

If Biden picked a VP before August he runs the risk of creating another election that the Democrats could lose. Waiting to August means that a replacement Congressman can be nominated by that State without a November election being required.

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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.

How can something be accurate but misleading?

You'll never get a job in media or PR with an attitude like that.

You start with the facts. Then see how you present them, so that they *appear* to support your narrative.

A real expert not only does not lie, but twists things *just* in the right way. So that even in an interview or law case you can defend what has been down.

Scott_xP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/RichardGCorbett/status/1284594637219475456

I hate these adverts. Not because they are Brexit related but any like this that Govts often puts out. It is pissing money up the wall that they can only do because they have taxpayers money they can waste. No commercial organisation would create such adverts; there is no obvious possible financial return and there is no educational or public safety reason to justify it. How does it help any business to take advantage of Brexit?

RochdalePioneers said:

contrarian said:

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...

Yes - the environmental dream of everyone on the train *depends* on the train being packed. And the train being the only zero emission technology.

Electric cars are now inevitable - we are looking at prices being *lower* than ICE within the decade. And ranges of 600 miles+ at those prices.

When you factor in the complete inability to take less than a decade and less than a sagan billions to build train lines....

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.

As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.

Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).

@Sandpit I find it interesting that I often like your posts, you often like my posts and often we both mutually like posts others make yet I think we come from different places politically

Scott_xP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1284897808680615936

"then someone f*cked a bat"....

I see SeanT's gone up in the world, writing in the FT now.

Pulpstar said:

kinabalu said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

state_go_away said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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.

Clive Dunn. Grandad.

Lightning in a bottle.

I rate Almond,

OTOH Shaddap Your face - Joe Dolce......

Tainted Love is one of the great no 1s full stop. A lot of it resides in Gloria Jones' original single being great as well though.

Malmesbury said:

eek said:

Chelyabinsk said:

eek said:

state_go_away said:

ydoethur said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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.

This is an interesting list:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-musicians-who-objected-to-politicians-using-their-songs-a8591351.html

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.

So would people OK with a band/artists using cease and desist orders of this type to prevent their music being played at gay weddings?

Legal bod question - would this be under the existing legislation on discrimination in the UK?

Since when did the UK come into this occasion. The story started out as a cease and desist request from a US based band to a US company for unlicensed use of their copyright on a streaming video.

It has nothing to do with live use, Cease and Desist is there as a means of informing companies about copyright disputes and allows said companies a means of protecting themselves by removing such videos quickly.

Peter_the_Punter said:

kjh said:

Scott_xP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/RichardGCorbett/status/1284594637219475456

I hate these adverts. Not because they are Brexit related but any like this that Govts often puts out. It is pissing money up the wall that they can only do because they have taxpayers money they can waste. No commercial organisation would create such adverts; there is no obvious possible financial return and there is no educational or public safety reason to justify it. How does it help any business to take advantage of Brexit?

Don't think it's an advert. It's an FT Leader.

It is referring (I think) to the adverts running endlessly current aimed at business with the stupid bloody arrows. As if any business worth its salt isn't thinking about what it should be doing to take advantage or mitigate Brexit. Not that the advert imparts any useful information.

eek said:

MattW said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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?

A complete scam.

Blame the french for that...

As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiAaMGGY1w

It was made by the .. er .. French.

eek said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

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...

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.

Including Don't Knows, Yes is still not over 50% and of course we now know the Indy vote will be split at a Scottish election next year for the first time since 2014

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/new-pro-indy-party-keen-22378423.amp

What date is the poll you are working from - I suspect a more recent poll could have it over the 50% figure.

Sturgeon has been far better at communicating a consist message then Boris ever was.

Yeah, but "I hate the English" hasn't got that much to do with health.

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

state_go_away said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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)

Definitely.

The Sun Always Shines on TV was another hit.

They were massive for a short while. Which is more than most can say. There comes a point in life when you realize you will never be massive - there will be no Desert Island Discs, no Parky - and I reached that point last Thursday. It wasn't a gradual thing it was sudden. Can't say it was pleasant but no big deal either.

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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.

How can something be accurate but misleading?

You're smarter than that. Things taken out of context can very easily be both accurate and misleading.

So what is the misleading part of the JL story?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.

Pulpstar said:

kinabalu said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

state_go_away said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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.

Clive Dunn. Grandad.

Lightning in a bottle.

I rate Almond,

OTOH Shaddap Your face - Joe Dolce......

Think that kept a monster off number 1.

Malmesbury said:

RochdalePioneers said:

contrarian said:

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...

Yes - the environmental dream of everyone on the train *depends* on the train being packed. And the train being the only zero emission technology.

Electric cars are now inevitable - we are looking at prices being *lower* than ICE within the decade. And ranges of 600 miles+ at those prices.

When you factor in the complete inability to take less than a decade and less than a sagan billions to build train lines....

Hopefully. Our 3 years with a Nissan Leaf was an interesting learning experience (an OK at best car from a space / ergonomics perspective but electric motor beats any gearbox) which makes me absolutely committed to getting another EV. Just not quite yet.

Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.

As an aside we dumped the Leaf back to Nissan in hefty negative equity having become utterly fed up both of Nissan and their dealers. Had we ponied up the cash to buy out the PCP we'd have the perfect local runabout car and a residual value that rebounded hard after the market got flooded with early adopters like me handing them back.

Peter_the_Punter said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

state_go_away said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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.

"Come on Eileen" was Dexy's second number one.
"Geno" is a far superior record.

"I'm too Sexy" was not a number one - because of Robin Hood.
But one of their follow-ups "Deeply Dippy" did make it to number one.

MarqueeMark said:

MattW said:

eek said:

MattW said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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?

A complete scam.

Blame the french for that...

As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiAaMGGY1w

It was made by the .. er .. French.

Not sure who is the more annoying creation, that frog or Jar-Jar Binks....

Bet there are lots of moths in that garden in all those thistles, though.

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.

As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.

Yes. Let's reclaim Eric for the Left!

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/RichardGCorbett/status/1284594637219475456

A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.

Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.

I'd imagine the economic benefit of EU single market membership would be more than £3 Bn a year.

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.

As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.

Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).

Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).

Just so. A PB poster citing him in support of liberalising private gun ownership was one of my recent favourites.

Selebian said:

OldKingCole said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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!

There can be a 5 year extension of the effective rights, partly to compensate for the period before the thing can actually be sold
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/intellectual-property/patents/supplementary-protection-certificates_en
(doesn't change your basic point, just finally finding a use for my knowledge from my former life as a patent examiner)

Together with a number of other strategies and stratagems...
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-016-2323-1

And, of course, for the biologicals, copying a product isn't anywhere near as simple as copying a chemical. And often means running clinical trials to prove equivalence.

Theuniondivvie said:

Nigelb said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.

As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.

Surely not? I thought Orwell's entire contemporary relevance is to justify gammons using dodgy expressions on twitter (the term 'gammon' being the exception of course).

Orwell is a bit like Adam Smith - something in there for all political persuasions (even the totalitarians get a how-to manual).

Just so. A PB poster citing him in support of liberalising private gun ownership was one of my recent favourites.

He's just brilliantly quotable. A sound bite writer before such things even existed.

And Stokes brings up his 50 with a 6 and a strike rate of 139. He is just the most incredible cricketer.

kinabalu said:

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

EU integration can both accelerate and deepen without the Inselaffen fucking things up.

As Orwell correctly observed, the sole political goal worth pursuing is a socialist United States of Europe.

Yes. Let's reclaim Eric for the Left!

Anyone who’s read beyond Animal Farm and 1984 couldn’t seriously dispute that he was of the left.

MattW said:

eek said:

MattW said:

Pagan2 said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

MattW said:

eristdoof said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/linkinpark/status/1284685829575565312

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024

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?

A complete scam.

Blame the french for that...

As it happens on the French wrt weekend's woke conversations - I came across something this morning that actually includes a French individual as a real frog .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiAaMGGY1w

It was made by the .. er .. French.

I remember it well.

Presciently, Characters from the show appeared alongside various other puppet characters in an episode of The Goodies, in which the puppets take over the running of the United Kingdom as a puppet government.....

Hector could be almost any one of the current cabinet.

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/RichardGCorbett/status/1284594637219475456

A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.

Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.

Understood. I assume therefore the UK government will shoulder the burden and fully fund the alleged £7bn in cost which will be applied to business? Will guarantee no delays of any description?

No?

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_xP said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

https://twitter.com/RichardGCorbett/status/1284594637219475456

A whining rant from the Pink 'Un is not news. Nothing new there whatsoever and £7 bn a year in costs is not a reason to remain considering we were being taxed over £10bn a year for EU membership.

Replacing a £10bn cost with a £7bn cost is a profit not a loss.

I'd imagine the economic benefit of EU single market membership would be more than £3 Bn a year.

I don't. Any evidence to support that proposition?

All the various counterfactual studies with differing types of brexit ?
Don't get me wrong, I think it simply must happen (In fact it already has) but that's a political imperitive due to the vote not any economic argument.

RochdalePioneers said:

Volvo's Polestar 2 looks stunning. Not as stunning as my S90 but not far off. Problem for any high-capacity battery cars that aren't Tesla is the utter lack of fast (150kW) chargers. And of the few that exist a decent % are run by Ionity who want an absurd 69p for a kWh of leccy. So the next generation of battery chemistry thats supposedly round the corner will be the tipping point to make it doable for us who do distances on the motorway.

We got a 22kw charger at home and just plug it in every night so Mrs DA (not famous for her patience) doesn't have to frig around with public chargers. It gets the Taycan to 80% SoC in about 6 hours.

The Polestar 2 has a very good interior and hits a sweet spot in terms of price and power. I think it'll be a hit.

The majority of the 160 outbreaks in Spain are traceable back to nightlife and young people partying, then spreading into the community.

Noche y juventud, cóctel de rebrotes para la pandemia

MikeSmithson said:

kinabalu said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Brexit is a disaster. Change my mind.

If it makes millions of people here feel better in themselves - more empowered - then this is arguably a real benefit regardless of it being objectively a project without tangible upside.

But if it makes even more people feel like shite that negates your point

52 😁
48 😥

In theory. But I wonder.

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1285105224831717376

On West.

Worries for his mental health.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53467658

Crap odds given he pulled out last week, and anyone who was not aware he was not firing on all cylinders is not too bright.

Er, Malc..... from the Beeb this morning
Kanye West has officially launched his campaign for the 2020 US presidential election, with an unorthodox rally in Charleston, South Carolina.
West, 43, is running as a candidate for his self-styled "Birthday Party".

Didn't seem the best of rallies, TBH, given the report!

So he was in and then said he was not running and now he is running again. Not the full shilling I think, looking for cheap publicity , surprise surprise.

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

OldKingCole said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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?

To me it says they know they would not be collecting as the jobs will be gone by the deadline and so they would just look stupid, also the extra wages would far outweigh the £1K a head.

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

contrarian said:

MaxPB said:

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.

Philip, he is just a nutjob

malcolmg said:

noneoftheabove said:

LostPassword said:

OldKingCole said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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?

To me it says they know they would not be collecting as the jobs will be gone by the deadline and so they would just look stupid, also the extra wages would far outweigh the £1K a head.

I kind of agree. I think it is more that they reckon the payout on the staff remaining will not be worth the bad press. From firing a big, big chunk of the others.

I think that the COVID19 crisis has accelerated (another one) the existing trend away from the High Street. Department stores are like an old version of internet shopping.

They have their uses - but someone need to work out how to monetise having physical things to look at. Which then get bought, as cheaply as possible, online.

John Lewis has the best brand of the big stores. And they will struggle.

Fysics_Teacher said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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.

How can something be accurate but misleading?

“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...

Deleted for stupidity.

Fysics_Teacher said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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.

How can something be accurate but misleading?

“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...

Why is it misleading?

NerysHughes said:

DavidL said:

And Stokes brings up his 50 with a 6 and a strike rate of 139. He is just the most incredible cricketer.

He played golf at my local course last week and I was in the group behind. My god can he hit a golf ball, not always the right way but he can hit it a carry of 320 yards plus.

His batting average for this test is 254.

TOPPING said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

TOPPING said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Charles said:

state_go_away said:

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

rkrkrk said:

I knew the job retention was terribly targeted, but I didn't expect businesses to turn down free money. Embarrassing for Rishi.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971

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.

How can something be accurate but misleading?

“Most people have an above average number of legs” is both accurate and misleading...

Why is it misleading?

Because it only works to a zillion decimal places.