UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Antonio the Sixth]

The EU is not, never has been and never will be a rules based organisation. It’s a fundamentally political organisation. You should know that by now.

You have this really nasty habit of responding to "ought" arguments with "is" statements. I was hoping you'd keep it on the down low for a while after I thoroughly schooled you on it a couple weeks ago, but I guess I should never underestimate your shamelessness.

Anyway, from my perspective there are things about this agreement that I don't like. Nonetheless, it represents some surprisingly decent gains in comparison to the previous agreement, so we may as well support it (in the same sense as the old deal represented the "freedom to achieve freedom").

Well, the fact that you like this deal is pretty damning evidence against it.

Oops, I forgot about that little diatribe, I must revisit it. Point is that I’m an ‘is’ type of person, whereas you’re not, so we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on the old ‘is-ought’. I do wonder what the point of having an ‘ought’ worldview is when the chances of actualising the ‘ought’ are so painfully slim, but hey-ho, I’m not an ‘ought’ kinda girl.

We are all "ought" creatures whether we like it or not. And usually the kinds of people who claim not to be are just disguising their own "ought" beliefs (sometimes even to themselves).

And in this particular case, the question of whether this deal is good or not is inherently an "ought" question, so if you really aren't interested in these matters, I'm not sure why you felt the need to participate in this discussion.

[JimJamUK]

• Hancock rejected plans to test members of the community for COVID when visiting care homes, against the advice of Chris Whitty.
• Hancock lobbied George Osbourne, then Editor of the Evening Standard, for complimentary coverage in exchange for access.
• Jacob Rees-Mogg successfully lobbied Hancock for additional COVID tests for his children, at a time when there was a national shortage.

Perhaps worth noting- everyone's acting in their own self-interest here. Oakeshott is the domestic partner of Reform UK's leader Richard Tice, and appears to have broken an NDA. The Telegraph is using this to further their anti-lockdown crusade. And Hancock is Hancock.

Which is a bit weird because most of the coverage/reaction to this story hasn’t been about the deficiencies of lockdown, but about the corruption and incompetence of the government that led to more COVID deaths. I suppose it helps (further) trash the reputation of ministers who were part of the governments covid response, but again it mainly furthers the narrative that the government was happy to look after its own interests and not do its job properly while pensioners died from COVID in care homes.

[oldtimer]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

And Australian audiences. Though we’ve always had more than enough right-wing rags, instead they built on their female skewed British readership to become *the* source of online news for Ozzie middle aged women. A gap that’s long existed in the market thanks to Murdoch’s penchant for macho macho men to run his Aussie tabloids. Really it’s supplanted the place of our women’s magazines, most notably (Packer’s) Women’s Weekly.

[EastAnglianLefty]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

What all 3 of those have in common is that they are not English broadsheets.

[Torrain]

Who will be the first Tory to cut the Gordian knot by pointing out that all of these problems could be solved by tearing up the Good Friday Agreement and getting rid of Northern Ireland?

The appropriate Greek Mythology metaphor for Northern Ireland is probably less the Gordian Knot, and more the Sword of Damocles - and even now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major-party politician who's willing to bring that particular blade crashing down.

Besides, the Good Friday Agreement has taken on the qualities of a sanctified text at this point, and is a by-word for the current peace. You'd be playing with fire to even discuss renegotiation, let alone abandoning it.

[Cassius]

The EU is not, never has been and never will be a rules based organisation. It’s a fundamentally political organisation. You should know that by now.

You have this really nasty habit of responding to "ought" arguments with "is" statements. I was hoping you'd keep it on the down low for a while after I thoroughly schooled you on it a couple weeks ago, but I guess I should never underestimate your shamelessness.

Anyway, from my perspective there are things about this agreement that I don't like. Nonetheless, it represents some surprisingly decent gains in comparison to the previous agreement, so we may as well support it (in the same sense as the old deal represented the "freedom to achieve freedom").

Well, the fact that you like this deal is pretty damning evidence against it.

Oops, I forgot about that little diatribe, I must revisit it. Point is that I’m an ‘is’ type of person, whereas you’re not, so we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on the old ‘is-ought’. I do wonder what the point of having an ‘ought’ worldview is when the chances of actualising the ‘ought’ are so painfully slim, but hey-ho, I’m not an ‘ought’ kinda girl.

We are all "ought" creatures whether we like it or not. And usually the kinds of people who claim not to be are just disguising their own "ought" beliefs (sometimes even to themselves).

And in this particular case, the question of whether this deal is good or not is inherently an "ought" question, so if you really aren't interested in these matters, I'm not sure why you felt the need to participate in this discussion.

I suppose you’re not wrong about us all being creatures of ‘ought’, but some of us are rather more ‘oughty’ than others. I myself always try batter down the ‘ought’ when it arises and focus on the ‘is’; I find it a much easier way to approach life being naught but a small and (largely) powerless person.

As for the deal and how it relates to ‘oughts’, I don’t see what the good is of judging it against an inherently unrealistic (or near enough) ideal; the EU as a ‘rules based institution’ that follows ‘rules’. There is no evidence from the institution’s history that it is one nor any to suggest that it can become one.

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1631006930083762200

[oldtimer]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

What all 3 of those have in common is that they are not English broadsheets.

What is also funny is that you can't buy English newspapers in Scotland or N.I. but you can read them now online from New Zealand if you like.

[EastAnglianLefty]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

What all 3 of those have in common is that they are not English broadsheets.

What is also funny is that you can't buy English newspapers in Scotland or N.I. but you can read them now online from New Zealand if you like.

This is (as probably shouldn't be surprising by now) not true. Some of the papers have a separate Scottish or Irish edition, but even those that don't are easily available.

[Torrain]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a rite of passage for every Scottish child to sneak out in the dead of night, and retrieve an English newspaper from the local black market (or as we called them, newsagents).

[CumbrianLefty]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

Yes, but actual dead tree sales are still pretty vital to them.

And those continue on their seemingly remorseless long term decline.

[afleitch]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a rite of passage for every Scottish child to sneak out in the dead of night, and retrieve an English newspaper from the local black market (or as we called them, newsagents).

Scottish people of a certain age who in their prime reads nothing but the Record seem to do that openly now.

[Torie]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

This one below is my favorite. I remember during first Iraq war that they had hot pics of a battalion of Brit troops, referred to as a "coiled snake" ready to strike and sink their "venomous jaws" into all who got in their way en route to Saddam's throat (this was before military females were much of a thing), and actually ran a hook up service on the side, where selected buffed warrior studs would make a brief statement as to what he was looking for romantically, and they could pick and choose among the responders. None seemed interested in males sad to say. Great stuff nevertheless - just fabulous. How on earth did you fail to mention it? It's much better than the NY Post.

https://www.the-sun.com/

[oldtimer]

What I've found interesting in recent years is how the once 'reputable' right wing press have trashed themselves by choice. In the US you can argue there was some market demand for our but given sliding sales and online engagement, everything from constant TERF pieces, to Roald Dahl, to obsessions over Meghan... you're finding a more reasonable, in terms to what issues actually matter to most people, outlook in the red tops.

I say by 'choice'. There's some proprietary or editorial pressure on the scales of course.

My pet theory is that this is down to declining circulation - it's no longer possible to run it with the pretence it's a commercial enterprise, so the only reason to own a broadsheet is that you want a pulpit that regurgitates your opinions back to you. Their audience has changed from the readers to the proprietors.

The Daily Mail found out a way out of it by appealing to American audiencies that don't have a major right wing national newspaper.

The WSJ is too upscale, and the NY Post too regional.

Thanks to the internet, all English Speaking countries essentially form a single media market.

What all 3 of those have in common is that they are not English broadsheets.

What is also funny is that you can't buy English newspapers in Scotland or N.I. but you can read them now online from New Zealand if you like.

This is (as probably shouldn't be surprising by now) not true. Some of the papers have a separate Scottish or Irish edition, but even those that don't are easily available.

That's the point, the english, scottish and irish editions are all different.

Because the local law covering journalism is different between those regions, one can publish things in scotland that are illegal in england and vice versa.

[Torrain]

The Privileges Committee have released a report, with their initial questions for Boris Johnson. Some passages suggest the former PM is in rather a spot of bother:

On 8 December 2021, Mr Johnson told the House: “The guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”.

We will consider why Mr Johnson told the House that no rules or guidance had been broken in No. 10 when he knew what the rules and guidance were and was in attendance at gatherings where the rules and guidance were breached; and why he failed to tell the House about the gatherings at which he had been present.

Johnson is now slated to give evidence to the committee on the week beginning March 20th.

[Torrain]

It’s always the WhatsApps apparently - from the report:

[CumbrianLefty]

B..b...but SuE gReY fRaMeD hIm!!!??!!!!??!!!!??!!!111!!!!!

[Zinneke]

Is it true there's no deadline for the COVID enquiry? What a staggering establishment cover up if so...

[Torrain]

New wrinkle for Sunak from the Telegraph’s trove of messages - Hancock claimed he quashed media covered of rising cases caused by Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme, with buy-in from the Treasury:

[Logical]

Why would anyone trust Isabel Oakeshott with sensitive information, ever? She accidentally got one of her previous sources imprisoned!

[CumbrianLefty]

Is it true there's no deadline for the COVID enquiry? What a staggering establishment cover up if so...

Government would never have agreed to one that reported relatively quickly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have no idea what "Eat Out to Help Out" is supposed to mean in this context but I really hope people somewhere are making all the jokes that came to my mind when I read this phrase.

[Estrella]

I have no idea what "Eat Out to Help Out" is supposed to mean in this context but I really hope people somewhere are making all the jokes that came to my mind when I read this phrase.

The scheme is long dead, but the phrase still kinda lingers.

[Blair]

I'm very confused why Conservative MPs wanted to talk about Sue Gray in Parliament today. It seemed to be made up largely of the Boris Brigade with some of the serious concerns crew.