Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
My feeling is: Yes, somewhat. But Regular Readers will recall that I am a curmudgeon who doesn't like New Things. So do they really want to agree with me here? Plus, we do have (somewhere round here) a house Guardian expert whose opinion would be interesting.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Some readers might, conceivably, like to know that the Guardian (formerly Manchester Guardian) is a UK daily newspaper which has for several decades been the main print source / gathering-point, as it were, for those on 'The Liberal Left'. Many UK ILE posters, I imagine, know it very well and have done for many years, so I thought there might be some opinions around.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I like the Guardian now more than I have for years. Perhaps the restyle of the mag helped, but generally the Burchill thing works for me and I haven't noticed a drop in quality elsewhere. The Guide has always been shite (and I say that working for PA Listings) but the rest seems cool. Can you specify what's gone wrong for you?

chris, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I hate the Guardian - particularly the G2 section, with it's crappy 'think' pieces, terrible arts reviews and smug phillistinism - and have bought it every weekday and Saturdays for at least the last fifteen years. Because, being a bleeding heart liberal and a news junkie, I couldn't bring myself to read any of the other rags (morning papers are somehow part of my going to work coping ritual.) I flirted with the Independent for a while - and the IOS still has the great film critic David Thomson writing for 'em - but I found it to be even more boring than the Guardian. I suspect that I am far from alone in all this, and that the Guardian survives on the unearned good will of the liberal middle classes.

Funnily enough, I quite like the Guide, partly because Joe Queenan and Byron Coley sometimes write for it, partly because it means I no longer have to buy that useless piece of toss Time Out anymore.

Andrew L, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I've never actually bought a copy of the Guardian, if I did buy a newspaper I'd get the Telegraph, it has a good weather section, obituaries, world news briefs and I like the sports section.

james e l, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I suppose the short answer is 'Trivialization'. One has to be a tad careful using a word like that, because, for instance,

1. The simplification of the accusation may just echo what it asserts about the target (just as 'Dumbing Down' is a dumb, dull phrase);

2. If I don't like Triviality, why don't I read nothing but 10-page reports from the former Yugoslavia? It would be hypocritical of me to say that I simply wanted them to be SERIOUS and SOLEMN and RESPONSIBLE all the time. No, that's not it.

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. Today's Lara Croft piece was just the latest of a million examples. It feels (the terms are problematic here, I know) JOURNALISTIC in a bad way - trite, unconsidered, full of crowd- pleasing Received Ideas - rather than JOURNALISTIC in a good way (that is: dogged, resourceful, brave, mentally agile, snappy and what have you).

It's the world of second-hand Lifestyle phrases that bugs me. The way that adults can still write a phrase like "*that* dress" and not hang their heads in shame.

A rider to all my bile, though, is that my previous, more impressed impressions of the Guardian may just reflect youthful impressionability. (Sentence!) Maybe the same kind of crap used to impress me that now feels rubbishy, faux-zeitgeisty and embarrassing? Maybe, but I suspect it's a bit of both.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Andrew L: I know what you mean - the Labour party factor of Nowhere Else To Go? (And brand loyalty, or whatever you want to call it.) There's actually a Verso book out (yet?) which makes a massive attack on the Guardian as home of neo-conservative (ie New Labour) ideas. I find this rather unconvincing and overstated. Even offensive, come to think of it.

I agree about Queenan too. But most of all, I agree about Thomson. There's almost no point having a thread about Thomson, because people who know what they think about him already know it all and would just send in superlatives.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Andrew L, and indeed everyone: cut em loose and let em drown in their own smug laziness!! I stopped buying it a YEAR ago FOREVER and now buy NO NEWSPAPER and am FREE. (Actually I too buy saturday for the guide — and for the food page in the mag, but the mag redesign is utter shit, and the recipes are in fact on long recycle: eg I have seen Lady Llandower's Duck three times now, always copied (of course) from Elizabeth David Salt, Spices and Aromatics...) The age of the newspaper is dead.

mark s, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Something has clearly gone wrong with G2: the other week they ran a page-long feature on the phenomenon of "Jumping the shark" (referring to that moment when a long-running tv fave finally loses the plot completely, apparently derived from a late episode of Happy Days where Fonzie, yes, jumped a shark). This was all well and good (except it was inane and ripped off from a website [this is a whole other can of worms]), but they ran an almost IDENTICAL story in the Guide not two weeks previously. Do they not read their own paper, or did they simply think the readers wouldn't notice?

What the paper still has going for it: George Monbiot's column, the Diary, Steve Bell, giving review space to Ians Sansom and Penman, and the tv columns of Nancy Banks-Smith. (When N B-S finally pops her clogs I will have to think very hard about buying the paper.)

What is leading the paper ever closer to the abyss: consistently terrible pop coverage (honorable exceptions: Maddy Costa, Betty Clarke); the fatuous new Saturday mag (Zoe Ball on dressing? match the celebrity with the pet? that awful woman talking about words that should be banned??); Charlotte bloody Raven.

stevie t, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. (Pinefox)

I agree with you there. They sucker you in with the G2 front cover (and the masthead of the main paper), but when you get to read the cover story it often appears cobbled together and lightweight. I imagine it must be difficult to fill that space with high quality stories day in day out though.

David, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Stevie: agree about Steve Bell, of course. I mean, if only for the sake of 1981 and all that. But actually, he draws and paints better now.

I actually like Peter Preston's awkward, staccato opinion pieces, come to think of it. But not the pompous ones of Hugo Young. Freedland is sometimes good at summing political issues up, but usually he 'sums up' too much - there's too much glibness in the way he marshals it all. (I admit again, though, that it's easy - even glib - to call someone glib.)

Penman strikes me as a red herring. I can see that he doesn't do that to you, cos you have some kind of investment in his career. I agree about Sansom (great left-back, mean penalty, blah blah) - in fact I think that the whole Saturday book reviews section is quite possibly the best feature of the paper. EXCEPT of course the footy. Heroes? How could I forget David Lacey?

BUT I think that you are wrong about N B-S. It doesn't surprise me that older folk make that judgement about her; it does rather surprise me coming from you. She has skills, I guess, but she's terribly repetitive; uses the same lines on the same topics year in year out. It's all too - yes - glib and easy, while dressed up to look aged and thus wise.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I agree with much of what's been said. After Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy went, it didn't seem as essential anymore. The Observer's the same - just dear old Phil Hogan that still makes me go down the shops Sunday morning

jamesmichaelward, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

My parents used to get a subscription to the Guardian shipped to them for the first few years they were in the States, because they couldn't trust the US Media. The Guardian just isn't the same when it's not printed on that semi-transluscent airmail paper.

I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has been particularly helpful lately... ;-)

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Steve Bell is a GOD but apart from that I read it largely out of having nowhere else to go and a worry that I'll become totally detached from the world if I don't read any newspapers at all. I think it might have marginally improved with the loss of Messrs. Hardy and Steel though. Everything they wrote was just as predictable and smug as any of the other writers mentioned above, only with a more left wing stance.

Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I don't read anything except the Spectator. Hey Chris, if you work for PA Listings then that means you're in the same building as me.

tarden, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

The Guide last week (or was it the week before) had that BRILLIANT article slamming not just the Strokes, but the entire music hype industry... VERY funny because it was so clearly written by an insider who had been participating in the music hype game for so long.

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I'd love to comment, but those Observer commissions are keeping me out of the poor house. Anything appearing in the Guardian or the Obs by my deepest and dearest friends is obviously genius...

Mark Morris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

As bad as the Guardian may have become, it's still better than the so-called "best" American newspapers. Or, if you think it couldn't get worse, it could end up becoming The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Reynard's right about the amount of trivial toss that gets in there. Mark's also right about the decline of the newspaper in general. Reynard's spot on re. New Labour - the Guardian's frequent criticism of some Blairite attitudes is one of the great things about it.

There's a lot of irritating stuff, yes. My favourite columnist is George Monbiot, by a mile. Something I like about the Independent when I do get it is that its liberalism is less metropolitan and more about the common good. Needless to say, though, the Guardian's series of articles on public service under that very title were awesome.

The Hemulen Who Loved Silence, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

OK, agree with the Hemulen re. The Common Good.

Today's G2 seems designed to add fuel to my (f)ire: one page of 'Style' after another, including a column on Why We're So Disappointed That Madonna Employs A Stylist.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Although Toynbee's piece on Labour post-election is admirable.

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Broadly I agree with her, yes. It feels a wee bit ironic given her immediately-pre-election pieces telling everyone how urgent it was to overcome apathy and vote for the people she's now criticizing. (But actually I think she was right both times.)

Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

six years pass...

oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

"At what age is a man too old to wear band T-shirts?"

Martin McCall, by email

"About 15 - that young enough for you, Martin? And to follow one rhetorical question with several more, what in God's name is the point of band T-shirts anyway? To show your allegiance to a band? Do you think anyone else cares? To impress onlookers with your esoteric musical knowledge? See previous reply. To make people stare at your bony chest? Again, I refer you to the first answer. To show that you once attended a live gig? Wow, like, a pair of golden headsets to the guy in the Nirvana '91 T-shirt. In case you happen to bump into the lead singer on the street, he sees that the two of you are kindred souls and therefore invites you to join his band and you then go on the road and have all the manly bonding sessions followed by groupies that your heart could desire? OK, I'll give you that one, although this does suggest that you still harbour the fantasy that you might bump into Joey Ramone in Waterstone's.

"As for ladies in band T-shirts, give me a fricking break. First, gals, a badly cut, poorly made, oversized T-shirt is good for nothing other than wearing to bed and the gym. Second, too often women who wear band T-shirts appear to be going for what we shall call Groupie Chic. It is a style amply modelled by Kate Moss in recent years, and can pretty much be summed up as skinny faded black jeans, ankle boots, a ripped band T-shirt and a cropped fur jacket. In other words, a girlified version of Marc Bolan's or Keith Richards' wardrobe, as though the woman has been so busy, um, sleeping on the band bus she hasn't had time to clean her clothes, so she's now wearing ones belonging to her musical companion. This column has no time for such nonsense."

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think I stopped wearing band T-shirts by the time I was 23. It wasn't necessarily a conscious move tho. I doubt I will ever wear one again tho - I guess it seems lame unless it's an old obscure or overlooked thus hip act (even this I dunno about). I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them. Does Matt DC still have that Save Ferris T?

I only want to sleep with musicians if they are hot as they are (their musical ability is pretty irrelevant in fact).

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

i was being harsh really. i don't care what's on other people's t-shirts that much. just trying to work out why i stopped wearing/wouldn't wear band t-shirts myself.

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I still wear band t-shirts if I like the band. Why not? I don't *define* myself or my personality by my music tastes any more, I haven't done that since I was about 18. But that's not the same thing as wearing a band t-shirt.

I suppose the fashion journalist in discussion cannot fathom the idea that clothes are just something you put on, rather than a definition of or statement about your personality.

This is definitely something that happens as you age - or rather, has happened to me as I aged. There's a subtle difference between Statement Clothes and just things you put on.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

In the past I've usually just bought them as a keepsake of a gig I've enjoyed. The piece tracer quotes is idiotic fluff, obv. I'd be embarrased to admit I'd written that.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Because you like the design? Because you like the music? Because it was given to you (this is where most of mine come from)? Because it was a souvenier?

x-post

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

given to you = not you buying

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

No, plus I've only ever bought them @ gigs.

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

Probably yeah, but w/smaller bands there's also the knowledge that in buying it, yr helping to supposrt the tour.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

i actually bought a comets on fire t-shirt solely because the design was so awesome. (it was at a gig, but they hadn't come on stage yet.) then i heard the music and i liked that too. i suppose if i hadn't liked their music, or thought it was boring, it would have posed a problem.

a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless so that alex in nyc doesn't stalk and kill him, bought a huge iron maiden patch when he was 14 and sewed it across the shoulders of his denim jacket. he had never heard a note of iron maiden, but he wound up becoming the biggest iron maiden fan i know, and even sung in a band later, where his vocal style was almost inseparable from bruce dickinson's.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

my take on this: do not read hadley freeman.

this resolution made some time ago, stands as strong today as it ever did.

it's a crass and deliberately invidious piece of writing. such an attitude, if sincerely held, could be turned around on pretty much ANY choice of clothing. so forgeddaboudit

Alan, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!

alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Taste is something that I have. It does not define me. Clothes are something I wear. The statement I am making is "I don't really care about clothes any more."

If I'm going to make a statement about clothes, I'll wear a bright green paisley jacket to a dronerock festival where everyone else is in leather.

I suppose my Hawkwind t-shirt is a statement, it says "ha ha, I'm wearing a Hawkwind t-shirt, I care nothing for fashion, I am wearing the shirt of a band so deeply uncool you can suck my left one because I love them!" But it's certainly not a statement saying that I want to f*ck any of Hawkwind or that I have a musician boyfriend whose Hawkwind t-shirt I'm borrowing, which is the assumption of that article.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.

*SOBS*

> you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

EAR t-shirt with the putney on the front = great. EAR live = terrible. (EAR on CD = ok, plus pram and stereolab were supporting)

koogs, Monday, 3 September 2007 15:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

The opinions of Jonathan Jones

Camaraderie at Arms Length, Thursday, 9 February 2017 09:26 (two months ago) Permalink

Is he still apologizing for being a Marxist while at Cantab?

Eats like Elvis, shits like De Niro (Tom D.), Thursday, 9 February 2017 09:54 (two months ago) Permalink

https://twitter.com/poundstoremike/status/829316802232610817

Neil S, Thursday, 9 February 2017 09:57 (two months ago) Permalink

I've got to include a couple more choice quotes from those property "downsizing" tossers in the Guardian:

"Their offspring, now aged 23 to 28, are barred from considering the pied a terre in the capital as their family space (“They’ve all asked and we’ve said no to them all. You let one and then they’d all want to use it.”). The children are welcome to stay in the spare bedroom of the new Chorlton house if they don’t treat it like a hotel. “They have to be in by midnight. We want them to respect our lifestyle...."

and, you can just sense the entitlement radiating from them with this one:

"That was the right house for that period in our lives. Now we have the right house for the lives we lead today.”

A pox on them.

Dr Drudge (Bob Six), Thursday, 9 February 2017 19:04 (two months ago) Permalink

dear "barred" offspring, your parents' generation are the reason you or at least many others of your generation will be stuck paying extortionate rent and wondering if having a child is feasible in a tiny studio flat until your ovaries shrivel and it's too late

and every time you mention this on the phone to them they'll just say "oh well we didn't have our life all worked out when we had you either, what are you waiting for" or "the Moldovan couple next door to you have two kids in the same size flat, you're just being prissy" or "if only you didn't eat out occasionally I'm sure you'd save a hundred grand for a deposit in no time"

a passing spacecadet, Thursday, 9 February 2017 20:18 (two months ago) Permalink

flat screen telly and a mobile phone too no doubt

kinder, Thursday, 9 February 2017 21:06 (two months ago) Permalink

when i was born my parents rented a 2 bedroom flat in the working-class east end of glasgow neighborhood of riddrie. they paid the equivalent of 62 pounds a month.

Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 9 February 2017 21:15 (two months ago) Permalink

In the early '90s a friend bought an incredible tenement flat on Gallowgate. SIX THOUSAND POUNDS!

jane burkini (suzy), Friday, 10 February 2017 07:16 (two months ago) Permalink

I regret to inform you The Guardian is at it again.

‘We didn't even have room for a table’: meet the 30-somethings fleeing London

As the government admits England’s housing market is ‘broken’, we speak to homeowners and tenants who say they cannot afford to stay in the capital

Emily Settle, 34, and her husband Jonathan, 36, left London two years ago with their daughter Tabitha, four, and son Douglas, two. “We were living in a four-bedroom terraced house in Lewisham [south-east London] but had always planned on moving out to the countryside so we could raise our children there and be closer to family,” says Emily.

“I was working at a ‘magic circle’ law firm as a corporate lawyer and, while I was very happy at work, working in the City can put a strain on family life.”

The couple’s London home had gone up 62% in value over the two years they had owned it. This enabled them to buy an eight-bedroom, Grade II-listed house in the Cotswolds near a good state school. “We increased our mortgage and went for the forever house. It’s a long-term commitment.”

By inviting an au pair to live with them, they managed to offset their larger mortgage payments against a reduction in their childcare bills. They have also kept their commuting costs down. Jonathan, a software inventor for IBM, began working from home full-time, coordinating his working hours with colleagues in the US and childcare routines. Emily joined law firm Foot Anstey, an entrepreneurial firm that supported her decision to work flexibly from a variety of locations, including her home.

Bubba H.O.T.A.P.E (ShariVari), Saturday, 11 February 2017 14:05 (two months ago) Permalink

aw bless, they invited an au pair to live with them

excitable Question Time guest (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 11 February 2017 14:11 (two months ago) Permalink

did they also save on energy bills by basking in the warm glow of their smugness?

calzino, Saturday, 11 February 2017 14:27 (two months ago) Permalink

Is that from the special weekend boasting supplement? Or the self-clowning one?

Eats like Elvis, shits like De Niro (Tom D.), Saturday, 11 February 2017 14:33 (two months ago) Permalink

"emily settle"

fake news

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Saturday, 11 February 2017 20:27 (two months ago) Permalink

"emily settle and her husband jonathan goode-mortgage"

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Saturday, 11 February 2017 20:28 (two months ago) Permalink

"Software inventor"

koogs, Sunday, 12 February 2017 05:20 (two months ago) Permalink

Gonna put that on my cv

koogs, Sunday, 12 February 2017 05:20 (two months ago) Permalink

Fuck sake.

Heavy Doors (jed_), Monday, 13 February 2017 07:44 (two months ago) Permalink

62% in two years in Lewisham? Fuxake

stet, Monday, 13 February 2017 12:45 (two months ago) Permalink

By the time the Bakerloo line extends there it'll be worth a couple of Latvias.

nashwan, Monday, 13 February 2017 12:50 (two months ago) Permalink

downsizing is prob hot coffeestation chat as they mothball the berliner presses tbf

sktsh, Monday, 13 February 2017 16:36 (two months ago) Permalink

That is an excellent sentence even if I did read it three times wondering how deforestation came into it

Betsy DeVos Ayes (darraghmac), Monday, 13 February 2017 16:51 (two months ago) Permalink

Bizarre puff piece about Louise Mensch, who has been retweeting every half-baked conspiracy theory for the last five months.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/louise-mensch-trump-russia-ties-media-scoop?CMP=share_btn_tw

Bubba H.O.T.A.P.E (ShariVari), Friday, 17 February 2017 17:57 (two months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

on the frontpage of the website right now - do not want

Dysphagia Nutrition Solutions (stevie), Wednesday, 8 March 2017 17:09 (one month ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/apr/02/the-lost-generation-credit-crunch-thirtysomething-brokebroke

A generally good line of argument, but undermined in classic Guardian-style by:

My mum gave us a £12,000 deposit, plus £2,000 to pay off my credit card, and my wife and I bought a house in a middle-class suburb of Newcastle for £150,000. Just after we moved in, my wife had a second baby and I got a job at a local magazine, working four days a week, with a day off for childcare. It was paid work, but I was earning under £20,000 a year. After considering my future, I decided I’d like more money in it. So I contacted a university lecturer about teaching, took their advice and enrolled on a Masters.

Dr Drudge (Bob Six), Sunday, 2 April 2017 10:45 (three weeks ago) Permalink

your wife had a second baby and you are only working 4 days a week?

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 2 April 2017 15:44 (three weeks ago) Permalink

The wife was working?

Bill Teeters (Tom D.), Sunday, 2 April 2017 16:13 (three weeks ago) Permalink

We arrived in Newcastle. My wife had a baby. She wanted to buy a house, but I was making £6,000 a year freelancing (three days a week; two days’ childcare) and writing a book, so we didn’t have enough.

lol and this guy asks his mom for money instead of finding a full-time job

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 2 April 2017 16:33 (three weeks ago) Permalink

HE WAS TRYING TO WRITE A BOOK YOU MEAN JERK

Django Chutney (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 2 April 2017 16:33 (three weeks ago) Permalink

true his weekends are devoted to writing this book. what about leisure time?

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 2 April 2017 16:36 (three weeks ago) Permalink

hilariously, that book was titled "You Could Do Something Amazing with Your Life"

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 2 April 2017 16:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah really not convinced this guy was a victim of the credit crunch particularly, just generally a hapless decision-maker (and in a more privileged position than he seems to realise)? Did he mention in the 2010 article how was affected by it? Unfortunately the people he really needs to convince otherwise would not be at all swayed by what he's written.

nashwan, Sunday, 2 April 2017 16:44 (three weeks ago) Permalink

tbf Katharine Whitehorn was born in 1793.

Punnet of the Grapes (Tom D.), Monday, 10 April 2017 10:18 (two weeks ago) Permalink

But if it’s a question of the difficulty of doing two demanding jobs

it's not

NEXT

'it's is my life' - jon bovi (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 10 April 2017 10:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

although tbf i'd quite like a column about how women are capable of being every bit as ethically compromised as men, actually

'it's is my life' - jon bovi (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 10 April 2017 10:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I had not expected the logical conclusion of 'domestic/emotional work is labour' to be 'it's fine for state employees to have separate full time jobs' but hats off to whoever comissioned her to write 250 words of reminiscences about it.

Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Monday, 10 April 2017 10:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

it misses the point on so many levels it reads like satire

'it's is my life' - jon bovi (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 10 April 2017 10:38 (two weeks ago) Permalink

tbf Katharine Whitehorn was born in 1793.

She is one of those Fleet Street legends who, I imagine, the Observer might find it hard to say "time for this column to end" to.

Alba, Monday, 10 April 2017 12:56 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Who is she? I've never heard of her, and I'm familiar with far more shit hacks than I care to be

why labour 'foot problems' since 2015? (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 10 April 2017 13:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

She has been a columnist since the '60s and is half pioneer, half Polly Filla.

syzygy stardust (suzy), Monday, 10 April 2017 13:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

she's written about etiquette and changing social mores since time immemorial -- her first book, "cookery in a bedsitter", is as old as i am

somewhere i have a copy of "whitehorn's social survival" (from 1968), which i remember thinking was funny and sensible back when i was a kid (tho i probably responded more to the mel calman cartoons than her writing)

mark s, Monday, 10 April 2017 13:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

a bad day when you learn nothing new huh

why labour 'foot problems' since 2015? (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 10 April 2017 13:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink

She's the same KW who wrote Cooking in a Bedsitter? Well I never.

Madchen, Monday, 10 April 2017 13:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink

kw in the 60s:

mark s, Monday, 10 April 2017 13:53 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Looks more like the 50s.

Punnet of the Grapes (Tom D.), Monday, 10 April 2017 13:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

it does and i think it probably is (photo by bert hardy)

mark s, Monday, 10 April 2017 14:00 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Maciej Ceglowski quote very good

El Tomboto, Thursday, 20 April 2017 13:53 (four days ago) Permalink

lol so they *can* hear him

https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/852583298014564352

sktsh, Friday, 21 April 2017 11:21 (three days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.