UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[Nevarfeather]

Did anyone watch Raab and Robbins give evidence yesterday?

Raabs wording on the backstop was fascinating. Fully admitted that the UK Gov were signed up to the backstop but then weaselled around it calling for time-limiting and temporary nature. Guess it's the only way they can secure DUP votes is to pretend the backstop is only a temporary thing. Are the DUP stupid enough to fall for that? I know the EU aren't happy with the idea of limiting the backstop as they know as well as the rest of us there there is no workable solution to a fantasy tech border in Northern Ireland. Any sort of border will have to be accompanied by hard infrastructure. 

[Jen'ari]

On 9/5/2018 at 4:26 PM, Werthead said:

I've made a decision to apply for the Irish citizenship I'm entitled to. Having lived in the Republic of Ireland for a while a decade ago and occasionally mooted going back, I'm thinking of revisiting that plan in the event of No-Deal. The RoI will be badly hit by Brexit, though, but rather less so than the UK.

I’ve got dual nationality with the US, we are planning to move over there in the next few years, not until our daughter is 3 or 4 though, she’s just turned 8 months so unfortunately I’m probably going to see the worst for the country with Brexit .

[Werthead]

18 minutes ago, Lord Sidious said:

I’ve got dual nationality with the US, we are planning to move over there in the next few years, not until our daughter is 3 or 4 though, she’s just turned 8 months so unfortunately I’m probably going to see the worst for the country with Brexit .

I would say that leaving the UK to go to the US in the next few years (this side of 2020 or, worst case, 2024) may be a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

[Jen'ari]

2 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I would say that leaving the UK to go to the US in the next few years (this side of 2020 or, worst case, 2024) may be a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

I have family in California, which isn’t too bad, saying that though, no way he’s going to get a second term, I hope not anyway!.

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Lord Sidious said:

I have family in California, which isn’t too bad, saying that though, no way he’s going to get a second term, I hope not anyway!.

The damage to the US is already done, and likely irreparable. 

[Jen'ari]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

The damage to the US is already done, and likely irreparable. 

Doubtful, they’ve weathered bad presidents before, and have the added advantage of being a Country everyone wants to do business with.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Lord Sidious said:

Doubtful, they’ve weathered bad presidents before, and have the added advantage of being a Country everyone wants to do business with. 

They've had bad presidents but nothing like Trump, and in large part the problem is that Trump is the symptom and figurehead of a greater problem, not the cause.

[maarsen]

4 hours ago, Lord Sidious said:

Doubtful, they’ve weathered bad presidents before, and have the added advantage of being a Country everyone wants to do business with.

There is bad and there is 'Are you fucking stupid? Is your fucking head made of fucking wood?" bad.  Trump is the latter.

[BigFatCoward]

It's not exactly politics bit it is political. The shock horror that Sandi Toksvig gets paid less than Stephen Fry is the most absurd reaction ever. She only gets paid 40%?  I'm amazed she gets that much. 

[Spockydog]

Just now, BigFatCoward said:

It's not exactly politics bit it is political. The shock horror that Sandi Toksvig gets paid less than Stephen Fry is the most absurd reaction ever. She only gets paid 40%?  I'm amazed she gets that much. 

That's fair. She's about 60% less funny than Fry.

[BigFatCoward]

10 hours ago, Spockydog said:

That's fair. She's about 60% less funny than Fry.

And about 99% less famous. 

[Werthead]

Toksvig is less well-known than Fry globally, but she's still been a television and radio broadcaster, comedian, playwright and presenter for almost 40 years. She's been in the business as long as Fry (they were in Footlights together) and she is a well-known entertainment figure in the UK. She is quite correct in saying she should be paid the same as Fry. Her experience is as great as his and that's what really counts.

 

Anyway, there are reports that Boris will launch his leadership bid in the coming week. In response, Number 10 has apparently leaked a dossier of Johnson's misconduct and affairs to try to nip that one in the bud. The words "Rome," "fiddling" and "burn" come to immediate mind. With Brexit to deal with, the prison system in meltdown, violent crime rocketing due to falling police numbers and the NHS teetering on the edge, it's good to see the Tories, as usual, putting themselves ahead of the good of the country. There's also an entertaining attempt to sue Johnson for misconduct in public office going on.

[BigFatCoward]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Her experience is as great as his and that's what really counts.

 

 

No it doesn't. Competence counts, marketability counts, fame counts. Her experience may be as long but it certainly isn't as impressive. She gets paid less because she is a lesser talent, while this is subjective i think you'd struggle to find anybody who disagrees. 

[ants]

The simple fact is Fry’s opportunity cost of doing the show was way higher, plus his celebrity helped make it popular. Both are good reasons for a pay disparity. 

[Jen'ari]

19 hours ago, maarsen said:

There is bad and there is 'Are you fucking stupid? Is your fucking head made of fucking wood?" bad.  Trump is the latter.

Agreed, although I found both candidates intolerable to be honest, however this is the U.K. politics thread so we probably shouldn’t derail it further.

 

In other news it seems Boris has really put his foot in it with yet another stupid comment along the lines of May is putting the U.K. in a suicide vest over Brexit.

How on earth would anyone want him as PM?.

Honestly has neither main party got anyone remotley palatable.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, Lord Sidious said:

Agreed, although I found both candidates intolerable to be honest, however this is the U.K. politics thread so we probably shouldn’t derail it further.

 

In other news it seems Boris has really put his foot in it with yet another stupid comment along the lines of May is putting the U.K. in a suicide vest over Brexit.

How on earth would anyone want him as PM?.

Honestly has neither main party got anyone remotley palatable.

Ah this feeling feeling of déjà vu. I think I've heard those thoughts somewhere, around two years ago, I just can't put my finger on it, yet.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Anyway, there are reports that Boris will launch his leadership bid in the coming week. In response, Number 10 has apparently leaked a dossier of Johnson's misconduct and affairs to try to nip that one in the bud

When I opened my eyes and saw the chaos, I despaired. But from within the chaos came a voice. Be happy and smile, it could be worse. And it became worse. 

So PM Johnson it is, it's arguably somewhat better than JRM (who doesn't want the job anyway). But at least we can stop pretending there will be any other outcome than no-deal, now I suppose.

[mormont]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

No it doesn't. Competence counts, marketability counts, fame counts. Her experience may be as long but it certainly isn't as impressive. She gets paid less because she is a lesser talent, while this is subjective i think you'd struggle to find anybody who disagrees. 

I disagree.

Hey, that wasn't much of a struggle!

But seriously. Competence counts, yes. Not sure why you think marketability and fame count. Neither make you better at the job: and while in the earliest days of QI it can be fairly claimed that Fry's profile helped the series find an audience, those days are long gone, and one would expect that in any case his salary would be smaller precisely because the series was new. Helming a successful series and launching an unknown one should not be wildly disparate in salary.

But if you're right, then we should expect that a male comparator - ie a host that is not Fry - would be paid the same as Toksvig, right? Seems simple enough. And yet... when we look at the rest of the story, we find that Toksvig is paid the same as Alan Davies. Davies is not the host. Davies is not significantly more famous or marketable than Toksvig. It's surely not credible to suggest that a male successor to Fry would have been paid the same as Davies. And if that's true, then at least part of the (massive) discrepancy can be ascribed to sexism.

You should also ask yourself: even if it's true that Toksvig is less famous and marketable, to what extent is that down to her being 'a lesser talent' (highly subjective) and to what extent is it down to her receiving fewer opportunities because of her gender? Because if you're going to tell me the field of comedy is well known as a bastion of gender equality, I've got some bad news.

[The Anti-Targ]

40% of fry's salary seems like an unjustifiably huge disparity. If you consider fame and marketability as something to factor in, then I can see that accounting for her getting 20% less than Fry. But 60% less is ridiculous. Competence and experience should get you most of the way to pay parity.

[TrueMetis]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

I disagree.

Hey, that wasn't much of a struggle!

But seriously. Competence counts, yes. Not sure why you think marketability and fame count. Neither make you better at the job: and while in the earliest days of QI it can be fairly claimed that Fry's profile helped the series find an audience, those days are long gone, and one would expect that in any case his salary would be smaller precisely because the series was new. Helming a successful series and launching an unknown one should not be wildly disparate in salary.

But if you're right, then we should expect that a male comparator - ie a host that is not Fry - would be paid the same as Toksvig, right? Seems simple enough. And yet... when we look at the rest of the story, we find that Toksvig is paid the same as Alan Davies. Davies is not the host. Davies is not significantly more famous or marketable than Toksvig. It's surely not credible to suggest that a male successor to Fry would have been paid the same as Davies. And if that's true, then at least part of the (massive) discrepancy can be ascribed to sexism.

You should also ask yourself: even if it's true that Toksvig is less famous and marketable, to what extent is that down to her being 'a lesser talent' (highly subjective) and to what extent is it down to her receiving fewer opportunities because of her gender? Because if you're going to tell me the field of comedy is well known as a bastion of gender equality, I've got some bad news.

What? They're celebrities, marketability and fame are their jobs.

Also are we talking about Fry's salary when he joined, or when he left? Similarly are we comparing Toksvig's salary to Davies when Davies joined, or now after being on the show for 15 year's. A first time panelist and a first time host shouldn't be paid the same. A first time host and a 15 year permanent panelist, the case could be made.

[lacuna]

I remember a time when eating a sandwich unattractively made you unelectable in the UK. Oh, those halcyon days...