"Official music videos" have returned to YouTube after an agreement with the Performing Rights Society. Excellent. Apparently, Pete Waterman only got paid £11 in 2008 for co-writing "Never gonna give you up" which was sung by Rick Astley and received 15 million hits on YouTube (described as "100 million" by Pete Waterman.). That helped to kick off the whole negotiation exercise, apparently, Pete Waterman not one to shrink into the background.
Anyway, after a piece reporting the above on BBC Breakfast this morning, Bill Turnbull turned to his co-presenter and remarked:
I wonder if that will somehow mean less homework done.
Astute man, that Bill Turnbull.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
David Cameron - come again?
While I pound away at the gym at lunchtime I occasionally catch glimpses of the BBC News. Yesterday, David Cameron appeared live, looking like a right prat, as usual, and his opening comment on the Al Meghari fandangle was:
The double-dealing is quite straight-forward.
Well, that was enough to set me off into ripples of laughter.
Straight-forward double-dealing. Hilarious. Surely the one thing that double-dealing isn't is "straight-forward"?
The double-dealing is quite straight-forward.
Well, that was enough to set me off into ripples of laughter.
Straight-forward double-dealing. Hilarious. Surely the one thing that double-dealing isn't is "straight-forward"?
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
US Health reform debate: confusion reigns
An interesting insight into the US Health reform debate from Political Wire:
American voters are not the only ones confused about health care reform.
On MSNBC, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) tried to explain to CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo that there already is government-managed health care in the United States -- the Medicare system created for Americans 65 years and older. He claimed patients using it are very satisfied.
Said Bartiromo: "How come you don't use it? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?"
Weiner: "Because I'm not 65."
Bartiromo: "Yeah... c'mon!"
Here's the must-see clip:
American voters are not the only ones confused about health care reform.
On MSNBC, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) tried to explain to CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo that there already is government-managed health care in the United States -- the Medicare system created for Americans 65 years and older. He claimed patients using it are very satisfied.
Said Bartiromo: "How come you don't use it? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?"
Weiner: "Because I'm not 65."
Bartiromo: "Yeah... c'mon!"
Here's the must-see clip:
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
"The most picked-over corpse in broadcasting history"
So said Bob Monkhouse of Simon Dee, long before the latter passed away. Well, I'll correct that. "Simon Dee" died about 39 years ago. It is perhaps more correct to record that Nicholas Henty-Dodd (known, apparently, as "Nicky" to his family and friends) recently, sadly, died.I understand that the media are reporting the man's demise accurately, within the gambit of his achievements in public life. But, really, it is, in a sense, ridiculous to get all that Simon Dee "Icarus" nonsense all over again. The man lived for 77 years. For 8 per cent of that time - 6 years - he was known as "Simon Dee" the radio and TV star.
What did he do with the rest of his life? Judging from his three wives, four children and four grand-children, he had a very active family life. Also, looking at pictures (for example, right) of him at the 2004 Radio Caroline 40 year reunion, he looked very happy and healthy for a 72 year old. It seems that his family and friends found him endlessly lovable.
Roger Blackhouse, a friend who is a QC, said:
He was a national treasure and his passing is very sad. I have very fond memories of him. He was a good friend, great company and a pleasure to be around. Simon enjoyed his time as a celebrity and had a lot of fun but he never showed any bitterness about it coming to an end. Like a war veteran, he only spoke about his past when he was asked. He was very much living for the moment.
Doing a bit of digging, I found this interview with Brian Viner from 1999. It at least answers some of the questions I had, perhaps over-inquisitively, about the fellow - what he do with the 39 years after he was famous? How did he make ends meet?
And what has he done for income for the last 30 years? "I have had no income," he says. "When my father died in 1980 I inherited a vast sum of money, but it was taken from me by death duties." Financially, Dee depends on his third wife, a teacher, and spends his days looking after their four-year-old son, Cyril George.
(At the time he was living in Winchester, as he did for the final 15 years of his life). There is an excellent tribute to Simon Dee on the Pirate Radio Hall of Fame.
His old pirate radio theme tune was "On the sunny side of the street" (by the Tommy Dorsey orchestra). Perhaps that song title provides a better epitaph to Simon Dee/Nicholas Henty-Dodd than many of the inevitable media stories we've read.
As my little tribute to the man who made many people happy, provided an icon for the Sixties (indeed, the unrewarded model for Austin Powers) and set a standard for informal, cheery broadcasting which many followed, here is that theme tune from YouTube:
Clarkson's pathetic remarks about female presenters
Ruby Wax once said to someone who described one of her on-screen habits: "I think you are confusing me with my act". Sometimes I wonder whether we are hearing from Jeremy Clarkson the man, or "Jeremy Clarkson" the act.
Why, for example, did he have to open his mouth about the concept of a female Top Gear presenter being a "disaster"? Wants a bit more publicity does he? Book coming out, maybe?
He says:
If a girl came in and we started taking the piss out of her it may look like bullying.
What planet is he living on? He's flattering himself, isn't he? Doesn't he realise that there are umpteen female presenters who would give as good as they get, and take as patronising the idea that mickey-taking had to be toned down for their benefit?
Would Clare Balding or Sandi Toksvig take any nonsense from the three cretins? And how about excellent presenters who have thrived on techy programmes with male presenters such as the superb Suzi Perry on the Gadget Show?
And if numpty Clarkson wants to witness female driving (travel) presenters giving as good as they get, he should listen to Sally Bosman and Lynn Bowles on Radio Two. They end equal on points with Terry Wogan and Johnnie Walker, that's for sure.
Oh, and by the way, there used to be a female Top Gear presenter long before Clarkson came along. Angela Rippon - I can imagine her giving any schoolboy mickey taking short shrift.
And 82% of Mail readers want a female presenter, so up yours Clarkson.
I can think of many men who wouldn't work on Top Gear by the way. This isn't a gender thing.
Why, for example, did he have to open his mouth about the concept of a female Top Gear presenter being a "disaster"? Wants a bit more publicity does he? Book coming out, maybe?
He says:
If a girl came in and we started taking the piss out of her it may look like bullying.
What planet is he living on? He's flattering himself, isn't he? Doesn't he realise that there are umpteen female presenters who would give as good as they get, and take as patronising the idea that mickey-taking had to be toned down for their benefit?
Would Clare Balding or Sandi Toksvig take any nonsense from the three cretins? And how about excellent presenters who have thrived on techy programmes with male presenters such as the superb Suzi Perry on the Gadget Show?
And if numpty Clarkson wants to witness female driving (travel) presenters giving as good as they get, he should listen to Sally Bosman and Lynn Bowles on Radio Two. They end equal on points with Terry Wogan and Johnnie Walker, that's for sure.
Oh, and by the way, there used to be a female Top Gear presenter long before Clarkson came along. Angela Rippon - I can imagine her giving any schoolboy mickey taking short shrift.
And 82% of Mail readers want a female presenter, so up yours Clarkson.
I can think of many men who wouldn't work on Top Gear by the way. This isn't a gender thing.
Cameron's disgraceful point-scoring
While dear old Irfan seems to have disappeared up his own exhaust pipe on the issue, Caron's Musings continues to provide an excellent commentary on the Al Meghari episode. It is utter nonsense to suggest that Al Meghari was "set free for oil". The Prisoner Transfer Agreement was what it says on the tin. A Prisoner transfer agreement. Al Meghari would have been transferred to a Libyan jail under its terms. Not set free. And, in any case, as Caron points out, the application for transfer under that agreement was rejected by Kenny MacAskill.
I really am sick of this whole furore going on and on. David Cameron says Brown should express a view and says the release was wrong. Der. So he's going to revoke the Devolution Act when he comes into power is he, the disgraceful point-scoring numpty? Would he ditch all the UK's compassionate jail release rules when convenience and Daily Mail headlines suit him? Yes, it seems. What a disastrous Prime Minister he would be.
Jim Swire, who lost his daughter, Flora, in the Lockerbie crash, made the only remaining valid point of this whole sorry mess in a letter to the Times published today:
So al-Megrahi has gone home and questions surround the propriety of his going. What about the question of his guilt? The official UN observer of the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, has described the trial as a travesty of justice and the verdict as untenable. Even the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there might have been a miscarriage of justice. The questions that are important to UK relatives of the Lockerbie victims are these: who was really behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher Government of the day ignore all the warnings it got before Lockerbie? Why did it refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of an inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court could not hear of it till after the verdict?
I really am sick of this whole furore going on and on. David Cameron says Brown should express a view and says the release was wrong. Der. So he's going to revoke the Devolution Act when he comes into power is he, the disgraceful point-scoring numpty? Would he ditch all the UK's compassionate jail release rules when convenience and Daily Mail headlines suit him? Yes, it seems. What a disastrous Prime Minister he would be.
Jim Swire, who lost his daughter, Flora, in the Lockerbie crash, made the only remaining valid point of this whole sorry mess in a letter to the Times published today:
So al-Megrahi has gone home and questions surround the propriety of his going. What about the question of his guilt? The official UN observer of the trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, has described the trial as a travesty of justice and the verdict as untenable. Even the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided there might have been a miscarriage of justice. The questions that are important to UK relatives of the Lockerbie victims are these: who was really behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher Government of the day ignore all the warnings it got before Lockerbie? Why did it refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of an inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court could not hear of it till after the verdict?
Nick Harvey on second homes - a damn disgrace
While generally admiring the man as an excellent LIbDem MP, I have long been rather perplexed by some statements by Nick Harvey. His role as spokesperson for the Commons Commission has often led to him defending rather uncomfortable positions. Defending what many see as House of Commons profligacy is a case in point. Now, Liberal Democrat Voice draws attention to Nick Harvey's statement, concerning MPs' second homes, to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In summary, as the LDV headline puts it, Nick Harvey says that 'MPs should be able to profit from second homes'.
This leads me to ask: Has Nick Harvey gone native? Has a bit too much of the inherent self-righteous pomposity of parliament rubbed off on him?
He doesn't seem to get it, does he? I mean, the public's absolute disgust for the whole MPs' expenses scandal. On the specifics of his statement, he says:
The MP has borne all the risk, which may prove painful for some in the current market, and
maintained the property in marketable condition. The taxpayer could not be expected to bear any capital loss. The fair and equitable sharing of any capital gain is through the capital gain tax system.
But surely, if the taxpayer has actually paid the mortgage over years, the poor old taxpayer should see the benefit if there is any, should they not? And it doesn't take a genius to work out that, under Nick Clegg's plan, if the state takes the profit from a second home sale, then, logically, the state should also absorb the loss, if there is one.
But come off it, the likelihood of a loss forthcoming is fairly low.
I am inclined to sympathise with Andrew Duffield, commenter on LDV:
What risk? Even with the current downturn, anyone who bought a property 4 or more years ago has made money on it – from doing absolutely nothing.
The proportion of this unearned uplift on an MP’s second home that has been financed with public funds belongs wholly and completely to the taxpayer – all 100% of it. Nick Harvey’s assertion that it is ok for him to pay a mere 18% CGT on this value, while pocketing a massive 82% for himself, not only flies in the face of Nick Clegg’s line on the matter, but also 100 years of Liberal policy and any sense of moral decency. Harvey should be hung out to dry.
While I personally would like to see publicly owned MPs' accomodation, I have also re-read Nick Clegg's proposal, which I think I slightly misunderstood. It is an admirable proposal and should be supported by all LibDem MPs. Here's what it says on his website:
First, if an MP wants to own a second home they should pay for it themselves. Right now MPs can claim almost £25,000 a year to cover the mortgage interest payments on their second home and to furnish it. It’s true that MPs representing constituencies outside of Greater London need a base near Westminster so that they can do their job properly and attend late night votes. But it isn’t right that taxpayers foot the bill for properties that could potentially yield politicians huge capital gains.
The second homes allowance should be cut and restricted to rental properties and basic bills. Greater London MPs, and Ministers given ‘grace and favour’ accommodation, shouldn’t get the allowance at all.
The Times, quoted on Nick Clegg's website, added:
MPs who already have properties would be given 36 months before Parliament refused to fund their mortgage interest payments. MPs who then sold their second homes would be forced to return to the taxpayer a proportion of the mortgage interest they had claimed, out of the profit. The precise formula to determine how much MPs should return has yet to be finalised, with party officials still examining how best to deal with houses in negative equity.The Liberal Democrat leader is determined, however, to lay down the principle that MPs should not continue to profit from huge capital gains at the taxpayers’ expense. Research in 2006 by House of Commons authorities found that 485 MPs — three quarters of the total — claimed mortgage interest payments. MPs have benefited considerably from the tripling of property prices since 1997, which have pushed up the average price of a Westminster flat from £171,000 to £543,000 last year. Despite being able to claim more than £20,000 a year for mortgage interest payments, MPs can keep any profit from second home sales when they leave Parliament.
Quite frankly, it is a damn disgrace that Nick Harvey is not supporting our leader on this. It is clear that Nick Clegg's radical stance is needed both from a principled viewpoint but also from the point of view of public anger on this.
This leads me to ask: Has Nick Harvey gone native? Has a bit too much of the inherent self-righteous pomposity of parliament rubbed off on him?
He doesn't seem to get it, does he? I mean, the public's absolute disgust for the whole MPs' expenses scandal. On the specifics of his statement, he says:
The MP has borne all the risk, which may prove painful for some in the current market, and
maintained the property in marketable condition. The taxpayer could not be expected to bear any capital loss. The fair and equitable sharing of any capital gain is through the capital gain tax system.
But surely, if the taxpayer has actually paid the mortgage over years, the poor old taxpayer should see the benefit if there is any, should they not? And it doesn't take a genius to work out that, under Nick Clegg's plan, if the state takes the profit from a second home sale, then, logically, the state should also absorb the loss, if there is one.
But come off it, the likelihood of a loss forthcoming is fairly low.
I am inclined to sympathise with Andrew Duffield, commenter on LDV:
What risk? Even with the current downturn, anyone who bought a property 4 or more years ago has made money on it – from doing absolutely nothing.
The proportion of this unearned uplift on an MP’s second home that has been financed with public funds belongs wholly and completely to the taxpayer – all 100% of it. Nick Harvey’s assertion that it is ok for him to pay a mere 18% CGT on this value, while pocketing a massive 82% for himself, not only flies in the face of Nick Clegg’s line on the matter, but also 100 years of Liberal policy and any sense of moral decency. Harvey should be hung out to dry.
While I personally would like to see publicly owned MPs' accomodation, I have also re-read Nick Clegg's proposal, which I think I slightly misunderstood. It is an admirable proposal and should be supported by all LibDem MPs. Here's what it says on his website:
First, if an MP wants to own a second home they should pay for it themselves. Right now MPs can claim almost £25,000 a year to cover the mortgage interest payments on their second home and to furnish it. It’s true that MPs representing constituencies outside of Greater London need a base near Westminster so that they can do their job properly and attend late night votes. But it isn’t right that taxpayers foot the bill for properties that could potentially yield politicians huge capital gains.
The second homes allowance should be cut and restricted to rental properties and basic bills. Greater London MPs, and Ministers given ‘grace and favour’ accommodation, shouldn’t get the allowance at all.
The Times, quoted on Nick Clegg's website, added:
MPs who already have properties would be given 36 months before Parliament refused to fund their mortgage interest payments. MPs who then sold their second homes would be forced to return to the taxpayer a proportion of the mortgage interest they had claimed, out of the profit. The precise formula to determine how much MPs should return has yet to be finalised, with party officials still examining how best to deal with houses in negative equity.The Liberal Democrat leader is determined, however, to lay down the principle that MPs should not continue to profit from huge capital gains at the taxpayers’ expense. Research in 2006 by House of Commons authorities found that 485 MPs — three quarters of the total — claimed mortgage interest payments. MPs have benefited considerably from the tripling of property prices since 1997, which have pushed up the average price of a Westminster flat from £171,000 to £543,000 last year. Despite being able to claim more than £20,000 a year for mortgage interest payments, MPs can keep any profit from second home sales when they leave Parliament.
Quite frankly, it is a damn disgrace that Nick Harvey is not supporting our leader on this. It is clear that Nick Clegg's radical stance is needed both from a principled viewpoint but also from the point of view of public anger on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
