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

great to see it isn't just the usual perfect bodies in olympic volleyball

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Tuesday, 2 August 2016 10:23 (one month ago) Permalink

as it makes me miserable whenever I read it, what other sources of news does ilx recommend?

ogmor, Tuesday, 9 August 2016 10:26 (one month ago) Permalink

the funding system feels very wrong and jingoism is bollocks so i agree

Tom Watson in a fedora (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 18 August 2016 07:20 (one month ago) Permalink

That's the bits I'm alongside with too.

Horizontal Superman is invulnerable (aldo), Thursday, 18 August 2016 07:21 (one month ago) Permalink

Agree with all of that, it's not exlusively a GB thing either.

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 18 August 2016 08:05 (one month ago) Permalink

Yeah that's a great article

imago, Thursday, 18 August 2016 08:25 (one month ago) Permalink

i mainly agree - the olympics is infested with weird politics, the whole concept of "team gb" sounds like what the tories will call the country after scotland fucks off.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 18 August 2016 08:50 (one month ago) Permalink

I mean, the Olympics are aesthetically a load of shit at this point. I was stuck for things to do last night so I tuned into a men's handball quarter final, and discovered my favourite Olympian of 2016 this way (not a difficult position to attain given I've basically avoided the lot) - the Danish second-choice goalkeeper, Jannick Green, who wasn't any sort of flag-draped musclebound Perfect Athlete but a lanky long-haired guy with about as much sporting talent as me (decent amateur soccer goalie fyi), who did an extravagant celebration every time his prancing saved a shot, often directed at the benched first-choice goalkeeper but mostly at the viewing public. At one point he failed to save a shot and in a fit of angst flung himself feet-first at a pitchside hoarding, denting it. Throughout, he and his mane fully embodied the absurdity of Olympic sport. I envisaged a Games populated by none other than his kin. But then I probably wouldn't watch that either.

Handball is better than I thought it'd be, though

imago, Thursday, 18 August 2016 09:02 (one month ago) Permalink

Wish I'd seen that. Are Denmark still in it? I'm sure Fred B will remind us they are. Fuck basketball btw, I hate that fucking sport.

Aw naw, no' Annoni oan an' aw noo (Tom D.), Thursday, 18 August 2016 09:08 (one month ago) Permalink

Yeah they crushed Slovenia. Handball is basically Euro basketball, but the existence of a goalkeeper adds something, sure

imago, Thursday, 18 August 2016 09:14 (one month ago) Permalink

Have to say I too have enjoyed watching the (womens) handball, admittedly because of the fact it's shown so much because 'TeamNL' (ugh) are doing well. The pace is relentless, and I've yet to see a player raise as much as an eyebrow when penalized or sent off for some minutes. It's accepted without any form of protest and keeps the game going at a ridiculously high pace.

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 18 August 2016 09:19 (one month ago) Permalink

Not one word on Guardian online about the scrapping of the Human Rights Act afaict. Nada.

chap, Friday, 26 August 2016 09:12 (one month ago) Permalink

It's here but framed as "Bill Of Rights will not be scrapped" rather than "Human Rights Act will be scrapped".

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/aug/22/uk-bill-of-rights-will-not-be-scrapped-says-liz-truss

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Friday, 26 August 2016 09:16 (one month ago) Permalink

What the fuck.

chap, Friday, 26 August 2016 09:19 (one month ago) Permalink

truth to power lol

I like it when you shoot inside me Dirk (Bananaman Begins), Friday, 26 August 2016 09:29 (one month ago) Permalink

I see they've dropped their "£49" banner to an option for contributions starting at 25 quid.

Which, funnily enough, is the same fee you need to become a member of the Labour Party.

Curious if anyone anyone has paid up?

xyzzzz__, Friday, 26 August 2016 09:44 (one month ago) Permalink

What the fuck.

The Bill Of Rights is what the Tories plan to replace the HRA with and the question has always been whether they'll actually go ahead with implementing it, so it's not an entirely unfair take though it does kind of assume that anyone scanning the headlines will know that. If people think the BOR = the HRA then, without reading the article, they might think the latter is being retained.

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Friday, 26 August 2016 09:58 (one month ago) Permalink

Yeah that's what I was what the fucking. Far too lenient on the Tories for our supposed left wing broadsheet.

chap, Friday, 26 August 2016 10:12 (one month ago) Permalink

What has actually happened this week other than Liz Truss reiterating in a Radio 4 interview that they haven't changed their plan to replace the HRA with a bill of rights? The Canary frames this as a "bombshell" that the MSM are hiding from you, but it's only a bombshell if you were convinced by this unspecified "speculation" that the government was set to change course.

Alba, Friday, 26 August 2016 12:05 (one month ago) Permalink

The Canary's whole MO is hyped-up clickbait headlines but why would you not want to keep on reminding people how vile the government is?

Len Bincowank (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:09 (one month ago) Permalink

As far as nhs cuts go, I don't know another way of saying 'his is what happens when you vote Tory, and people have been telling you that most of your lives and you don't listen'. It's profoundly depressing. A bunch of Tory voters in the pub today saying that's wasn't what they voted for the Tories for.

two crickets sassing each other (dowd), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:20 (one month ago) Permalink

had a convo with my brother on Wednesday about how can we find hope for a better world in the light of the way people approach their vote and the political system in general?

Len Bincowank (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:28 (one month ago) Permalink

didn't word that right - the general tenor of the convo was "how to even think about this stuff without massive depression?"

Len Bincowank (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:31 (one month ago) Permalink

It's odd, because it makes me (and I think most people) uncomfortable to start talking about the psychology of convincing people to do certain thing. We maybe like to frame it as 'communicating truths'. But relying on the the 'virtue of our message' to necessarily convince people seems like a doomed enterprise.

two crickets sassing each other (dowd), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:33 (one month ago) Permalink

I gave up a long time ago on the notion that my political beliefs were in any sense provably "right". I guess at best I might argue that the kind of society I want would benefit the greatest number of people, but even that would be v debatable. in the end I simply have class interests and think the number of people who are in the same broad class as me is far greater than its members realise

but anybody who believes in nuance and complexity and moral philosophy has to do a lot of breath-holding to engage with parliamentary democracy as is

Len Bincowank (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:50 (one month ago) Permalink

But even accepting a realpolitik view, I have no idea how you would counter the current forcings.

two crickets sassing each other (dowd), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:52 (one month ago) Permalink

I don't think you'll carry millions of people with you by saying "what you think you understand about your own best interests is wrong", that's for sure

Len Bincowank (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:57 (one month ago) Permalink

an ilx favourite that feels painfully true about politics as it plays thru the media in 2016

Len Bincowank (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 August 2016 12:58 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Deborah Orr working hard to be challopian in chief

dancing jarman by derek (ledge), Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

fucking blinkered moron needs exiling to Hartlepool for 20 years.

calzino, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

It is good to see the Graun strengthening their case as bastion of high quality journalism that is worth paying for again tho

calzino, Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:38 (two weeks ago) Permalink

so if you're in a handsomely-paid middle class job flexibility of working hours might be a positive? ouch, my mind.

you can't drowned a duck (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 10 September 2016 11:39 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Guardian journalist - there's a job for life, these cunts walk out of one job straight into another like it's fuckin' 1952 or something.

Bottlerockey (Tom D.), Saturday, 10 September 2016 12:11 (two weeks ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/zero-hours-contracts-lousy-recovery

This is from a few years ago. I would like to navigate through Debz's confused mind but I have things, i.e. work, to do.

xyzzzz__, Saturday, 10 September 2016 12:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/13/the-great-british-bake-off-disaster-why-the-bbc-got-burned

Mark Lawson puns, the stubbed toes of prose

Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 19 September 2016 14:59 (one week ago) Permalink

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1427/street-of-shame

xyzzzz__, Monday, 19 September 2016 19:43 (one week ago) Permalink

I've been without enough hot apes wot

poor fiddy-less albion (darraghmac), Friday, 30 September 2016 11:54 (four hours ago) Permalink

The fuck kind of autocorrect appends 'out' ffs

poor fiddy-less albion (darraghmac), Friday, 30 September 2016 11:55 (four hours ago) Permalink

Is that Hot Ape or Ho Tape?

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:23 (four hours ago) Permalink

ridiculous animal acronyms

Still D.U.C.K. (Noodle Vague), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:25 (four hours ago) Permalink

Learn why it’s essential to incorporate social science into your partner search

is it tho?

the devastation is very important to me (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:26 (four hours ago) Permalink

indeed xp

Bubba H.O.T.A.P.E (ShariVari), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:27 (four hours ago) Permalink

gives you somebody else to blame when you get repeatedly shot down

Still D.U.C.K. (Noodle Vague), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:27 (four hours ago) Permalink

Through my scientific research into the flirting behaviour of the inhabitants of London, NY, Paris, and Stockholm, I have determined there are six universal signs of attraction

checking out hot apes in western metropolitan areas = universal fuckwant behaviour

IT'S SCIENCE

the devastation is very important to me (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:30 (four hours ago) Permalink

London NY Paris Stockholm
Everybody's talkin' 'bout
HOT APES

Still D.U.C.K. (Noodle Vague), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:31 (four hours ago) Permalink

Humour
Open body language
Touch

Touch (again)
Attention
King-sized dick
Eye contact

The Codling Of The London Suede (Legal Warning Across The Atlantic) (DJ Mencap), Friday, 30 September 2016 12:51 (four hours ago) Permalink

love it when a woman with a king-sized dick makes that eye contact

the devastation is very important to me (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 30 September 2016 13:56 (two hours ago) Permalink


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