Reheated (42)
For newcomers, more items from the archives.
Urban Studies lecturer Peter Matthews worries about the unequal distribution of litter and suggests bulldozing Belgravia. For the poor.
Our postcode class warrior links to a report fretting about how to “narrow the gap” in litter, how to “achieve fairer outcomes in street cleanliness.” But neither he nor the authors of said report explore an obvious factor. The words “drop” and “littering” simply don’t appear anywhere in the report, thereby suggesting that the food-smeared detritus and other unsightly objects just fall from the clouds mysteriously when the locals are asleep. And fretting about inequalities in litter density is a little odd if you don’t consider how the litter gets there in the first place. Yet this detail isn’t investigated and the report can “neither confirm nor reject the idea that resident attitudes and behaviours are significant drivers of environmental problems.”
Please Don’t Dump Your Garbage on the Roadside.
Performance artists Katy Albert and Sophia Hamilton hit each other with pillows, thereby sharing their radicalism with the unthinking proles.
One has to wonder what our creative betters’ long-term plan is. How, exactly, were they hoping to entice employers and repay the cost of their extensive education? Is incongruous pillow flailing – sorry, “strategic refraction” – a skill in demand? Is it something the public cries out for and will rush to throw money at? What do the ladies plan to do when they’re, say, forty, or fifty? Given the improbability of such people being self-supporting in later life – at least in their chosen line, the one for which they’ve studied – do they have wealthy parents who will indulge them indefinitely? Or do they expect their talents, such as they are, to be rewarded with other people’s earnings, confiscated forcibly by the state and redistributed as artistic subsidy? And is self-inflicted dependency a thing to encourage and applaud? I ask because the ladies say they want us to “think critically.”
The Guardian’s Matt Seaton rages against tiny cakes, which are apparently exploitative and mentally debilitating, at least to womenfolk.
After telling us at length just how terrible and mind-warping these tiny fancies are, Mr Seaton adds, “I don’t want to ban cupcakes.” And yet he feels it necessary to say this, as if banning miniature sponges would be an obvious thing to consider, the kind of thing one does. And after banning them in his own office. An accomplishment that a fellow Guardianista, the daughter of the paper’s editor no less, regards as confirming Mr Seaton’s moral credentials: “I used to bring cakes into the office a lot, and Matt put a ban on it because he was worried about how much sugar we all ate. Practises what he preaches this man.” Come work at the Guardian, where the party never stops.
There’s more, should you want it, in the greatest hits. And tickling the tip jar is what keeps this place afloat.
And fretting about inequalities in litter density is a little odd if you don’t consider how the litter gets there in the first place.
I was laughing until I got to your last paragraph. Then I remembered he’s teaching this bollocks.
*tickles tip jar*
Then I remembered he’s teaching this bollocks.
Well, given the standard of argument that Mr Matthews deploys in a national newspaper, and his apparent disinterest in certain, rather obvious variables, you do have to wonder what his classes are like.
And thanks for the tickle.
In the meantime, here are Ms. Albert or Ms. Hamilton (they are collectively known as “mothergirl”) channelling Cousin Itt by way of some piss-poor stand-up and general arsing about as part of the (no doubt non-ironically titled) “Garbage World 6”.
BTW, just hit your tip jar too.
Cheers, Mr Oik.
channelling Cousin Itt by way of some piss-poor stand-up
I think you forgot the link, which, presumably, was this one here. The, um, performance really kicks into gear about 6:44, if you can bear that much of it. And as is often the case, it’s hard to be sure what they were hoping to achieve, beyond being noticed.
Perhaps the ladies’ mission is to gradually clarify all of the things they can’t do competently.
Oops.
Sorry.
Tipped. Top blog.
The litter lament reminds me of a tale my dad told me from when he was a driver and shop steward at a major oil tanker depot back in the 70s: complaints were raised at one of the staff meetings that the vehicle cabs often had old newspapers, food wrappers, etc in them when the drivers collected them in the morning, to which the depot manager replied it must be due to the squad they employed to go around putting litter in the cabs in the night. Next agenda item please…
My dad still remembers it with a chuckle.
And as is often the case, it’s hard to be sure what they were hoping to achieve, beyond being noticed.
According to the Telegraph, that sort of thing is apparently now getting into politics now too . . .
Hal – for a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and whatnot, The Telegraph sure can’t seem to stop talking about UKIP. I’m hoping they finally go behind that paywall they’ve been threatening to put up, so the paper can die with a bit of dignity.
Mr Seaton’s obsessional fear and loathing of cupcakes, seems oddly similar to so many commentators’ fear and loathing of “fruitcakes”. Remind me to duck next time I pass a patisserie.
to which the depot manager replied it must be due to the squad they employed to go around putting litter in the cabs in the night.
Heh.
And yet students of Urban Studies are being taught by a man who believes that the litter found in “deprived areas” is caused by “a lack of street cleaners,” even though the report he cites – supposedly as evidence of unfairness – actually states that council cleaning resources are “skewed towards deprived neighbourhoods” – with councils spending up to five times more on those areas than they spend on cleaning more respectable neighbourhoods. And despite receiving more attention, more frequent cleaning, more taxpayers’ money, those “deprived areas” are still much more heavily littered.
And being a devout socialist, Mr Matthews is baffled by how this could be. Apparently we mustn’t consider the (rather obvious) possibility that the people who live in “deprived areas” are much more likely to litter.
And despite receiving more attention, more frequent cleaning, more taxpayers’ money, those “deprived areas” are still much more heavily littered.
Scrotes gonna scrote.
Steve: “for a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and whatnot, The Telegraph sure can’t seem to stop talking about UKIP”
I get almost almost all my knowledge of UKIP from the lefties on my Facebook feed. UKIP is just identity politics by the “wrong sort of people”. The left don’t like them, but they haven’t yet figured out why.
My lefty friends have recently been warning me about something called “Britain First”. They don’t tell me what it is, they just say they’ll de-friend me if I have anything to do with it.
Patrick – I must confess I’ve never heard of “Britain First”, though I don’t follow politics that closely.
And I don’t know how to do a facebook but I’ve seen my wife on it and it doesn’t look like it’s the sort of thing I’d be good at. Nobody seems to want to take the time to communicate properly the old-fashioned way – through a well-crafted email – any more.
It’s not because I don’t have any friends, because I do, and they live abroad.
My kids will probably ask me “Daddy, what was email?” when they’re older.
You see, in his mind,
Poverty and affluence are two sides of the same coin. One would not exist without the other.
The attitude behind that line reminds me a little of something I just discovered courtesy of The Guardian this morning – that the UK gender gap continues to widen, says World Economic Forum report
This is a report that, amongst other things, explains that gender inequality for women in the UK is now 26th in the Global Gender Gap Report, apparently making conditions of parity for British women significantly worse than those for women in “Nicaragua (sixth), Rwanda (seventh) and the Philippines (ninth).”
In trying to offer explanations as to why British women have it so bad, the topic of childcare comes up:
…other observers said the UK could be slipping down the list because of the way in which it structures childcare and paternity leave.
Spencer Thompson, senior economic analyst at the IPPR thinktank, said: “France and UK spend more on childcare – but tend to do it through cash transfers to parents. In countries like Sweden, Iceland and Norway they provide more services … either free at the point of use or very heavily subsidised. In UK we have really high childcare prices as we are injecting lots of cash into the system.”
Does anyone understand what (the other) Mr Thompson is saying here? For that matter, does Mr Thompson understand what he is saying?
Well, what this (other) Mr Thompson is taking from all this is that if you get your news and commentary chiefly from the Guardian, your worldview will be quite peculiar and not particularly realistic.
Nikw211:
I don’t know if Spencer Thompson intends to say this, but to me he’s implying that the UK is inflating a child-care bubble.
25 years ago when I went off to college here in the States, the family had to fill out a financial aid form, from which the college would determine how much we could afford to pay toward tuition/room and board, with the rest of the money coming from scholarships/loans/what have you. It very quickly dawned on me that if the government put more money into the system, either through direct grants or subsidized loans or whatever, the college would still say we could pay the same amount, but would be able to jack up tuition and pocket the rest.
And yet there are still idiots who think the solution is to inflate the bubble further.
Child subsidies artificially enable both parents to work thus pushing up land prices, especially around non shit schools.
You’d be curious as to who really benefits from these payments, good job no-ones heard of Ricardo’s Law…
Ted S.:
I see it slightly differently – what you’re describing sounds to me more like a state subsidy than a cash transfer (i.e. you had already gained entrance to your college and the financial assessment followed it, which as I’m sure you realise is different from receiving the financial aid in advance of your application and then choosing your college at least in part according to the funds you have available).
What The Other Mr Thompson appears to be saying is that prices are being driven up – not down – by the existence of private childcare providers who are in competition with one another. In other words, I take him to be suggesting that merely knowing that cash exists in the system is leading these private childcare providers to push up their prices (surely, that doesn’t make sense does it?).
He is therefore ignoring a very wide range of other possible explanations as to why those prices might be high, not the least of which is trust in the people who are going to take care of your kids. Where trust is at a premium, I imagine there is little comfort but a lot of suspicion in discovering a suspiciously low-cost alternative. As the UK is in a grip of panic about pedophilia (not all of it without cause) I suspect a lot of parents actually choose to pay higher prices for the peace of mind of a more secure and higher quality service if they can afford to do so.
The Other Mr Thompson is also unambiguously making a case for (quote-unquote) “free” childcare services to be provided by the State to all on the grounds that it will be both less expensive to run than private companies can offer, and it will also lead to more gender equality as more women go out to work.
I think The Other Mr Thompson is one of those people for whom Finland, Sweden where a c. 50% income tax rate seems to have produced the best of all possible worlds (apparently ignoring other countries with similarly high tax rates that don’t seem to enjoy quite the same standard of living, e.g. Belgium).
“Or do they expect their talents, such as they are, to be rewarded with other people’s earnings, confiscated forcibly by the state and redistributed as artistic subsidy?”
Nonsense. They expect to be rewarded with other people’s pillows. And quilts, with the possibility of cuddly toys and hot water bottles.
“I used to bring cakes into the office a lot, and Matt put a ban on it because he was worried about how much sugar we all ate.”
Of course , the natural reaction would be to show your complete contempt for ‘Matt’ by bringing in more, larger cakes more frequently, and kneeing the authoritarian wanker in the balls for good measure.
Yeah, but it’s The Guardian. It’s a delightful fantasy though.
Perhaps ‘well-wishers’ could send crate-loads of krispy Kreme donuts round to Guardian HQ. It could create moral panic ,institute a state of paralysis, halt productivity. Comment is Free could be brought to a standstill. It’s all good.
Well, there is no good news for Australia in this year’s Gender Gap report. Like last year, Australia had men showing a lower life expectancy than women by 3 years which the WEF scores as women suffering a gender gap. They manage this by redefining life expectancy “equality” as women outliving men by 1.06:1.
The Gender Gap report also lists any category in which women outscore men as “Equality” no matter how onesided. (For example, the US is marked as “equal” in the Educational Attainment category despite women being equal in 2 of the subcategories and leading men in the other 2 subcategories) The WEF must really hate women to define their terms so women can only be behind men or equal to men but never ahead of them.
Russia is the most equal country when it comes to life expectancy last year and the second most equal country this year (p74) because Russian men die so much earlier than women (57years for men and 66 for women). Equality! They don’t seem too concerned that “equality” achieved by men kicking off early doesn’t actually make women live longer.
One might get the impression these are not the most rigorous egalitarians.
Like last year, Australia had men showing a lower life expectancy than women by 3 years which the WEF scores as women suffering a gender gap.
Anyone would think it’s as if men are deliberately staying alive just to thwart women’s career opportunities, isn’t it?
One might get the impression these are not the most rigorous egalitarians.
Heh. Perish the thought.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Or did someone already say that?