Isn\’t this interesting from Ritchie?

Right now a great many are trying to abuse this policy and I am working at the limits of my physical capability.

I will be hitting the delete button very hard on the next few weeks, without any compunction at all. There are ample numbers of blogs available promoting the falsehoods of the right: there is no need for them to appear here as well.

To translate that, anyone who shows that I am wrong will be deleted. However, this is much, much, more fun:

Despite what many like to claim this blog is pretty much written in my spare time: it’s why I work rather too many hours a day.

The reason it\’s fun is that when you go look at the accounts of Tax Research LLP you\’ll see that there\’s a substantial income coming in from the Joseph Rowntree peeps. And both the the TR LLP accounts and at the JR site one of the major things that grant is supposed to cover is the writing of the blog.

So I wonder if the Joseph Rowntree people realise that they\’re paying £35 k a year for a blog that\’s dashed off in Ritchie\’s spare time?

Some of us would actually consider that a decent income for a full time job you know.

33 comments on “Isn\’t this interesting from Ritchie?

  1. If someone paid me £35K I would jack in my current job at a moments notice and would write anything that kept my paymaster happy. I would even write stuff that is stupid and illogical and contradictory if it whipped up people who are in my paymaster’s group into a frenzy.

  2. It’s an indication of his innate narcissism that this actually appeared on his blog – Almost every contributor who appears here is barred from it anyway! What a pathetic individual he is – if he bars ‘Trolls’ (effectively a category that encompasses anyway vaguely to the right if centre or cognoscentif any history prior to 1978) or ‘NeoLiberals’ (anyone who disagrees with him on anything ) he’ll scarcely have anyone Left- won’t, no doubt stop him proclaiming himself as ‘The number one economics blogger in the UK’

  3. Do you think he actually believes that the harder he hits the Delete key the better it works?
    Bless.
    I do actually pity the man, though it’s not for the herculean physical efforts the poor little flower is having to exert.

  4. Someone needs to give the JRF trustees a kick up the backside. £35k for any blog is bad value for money, let alone Ritchies.

    Given how seriously this dickhead and his policies are taken by the BBC and certain politicians, it is extraordinary value for money.

  5. Heat and Kitchens here. Look I’m sorry, but if you are a blogger then you are prepared to debate with people. Yes, some may be ignorant trolls, but that’s the turf we’re treading. So, if you’re not prepared to debate, rattled by every criticism and so insecure you’re offended by every opinion you don’t share, well then you’re just not a blogger.
    He’s not an economist either and doesn’t qualify as a tax “expert”.

  6. Do you know, I do believe that the end of my comment was censored. Say it ain’t so, Timmy.

  7. Tim Newman (# 7)

    Hear, hear – I’d say given how influential he is – likely to be A Senior Economic advisor to the incoming Labour government and setting the policy agenda on taxation and state responsibility, 35K seems a bargain!

  8. Tim,

    You wrote,

    “Some of us would actually consider that a decent income for a full time job you know.”

    Would a backbench Tory MP?

  9. Why doesn’t he just let the comments rip? Most, if not all, so-called right wing blogs do not delete left wing views that are amply represented elsewhere, unless there is actual abuse or threats, sometimes not even then – they just let the regulars argue against them, and let the best debater win.

    What he seems to be saying is that he feels his arguments are not good enough to stand up against opposition, so his site should be a sycophants only zone. I would post this there, but I doubt he would appreciate it.

  10. Do you know, I do believe that the end of my comment was censored. Say it ain’t so, Timmy.

    It ain’t so, dearime, would bet on it. Chez Worstall has been having a lot of comment problems lately, cutting off at random. We all need to club together and fund a decent service for our favourite hangout I think

  11. Why doesn’t he just let the comments rip?

    I should point out, my argument is not about free speech. His site (no matter who funds it) is his playground. He can ban anyone he wants. Private property. I am accusing him of lack of moral fortitude and confidence in his arguments.

  12. I found the post and was pretty incensed by this reason for not publishing comments

    6. It is not questioning the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based. This last point is important. Those who wish to argue that tax havens / secrecy jurisdictions are good things may do so, but not here. Likewise those promoting neoliberal economics may do so, but not here

    My response, which although polite, not abusive, etc, is unlikely to be published

    “Well, it’s your sandbox and you can do what you like with it. I don’t understand why you don’t just let the comments rip and save yourself all the effort of punching the delete key. Most if not all libertarian/neoliberal/right wing blogs allow free commenting except in egregious cases. Frequently unmoderated. I simply don’t trust any blog where the writer is vetting comments on his own posts.”

  13. He should subcontract to the guy who does that Murphy-esqe parody. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes.

  14. Murphy might be dismayed to know that it was refusing to engage meaningfully with the questions and criticisms that I raised that drove me to Tim’s blog here.

    I started off sympathetic to his overall thrust, but had some queries about some of the detail behind the rhetoric, and how far his proposals would extend. Rather than recognise this, he accused me of being a neo-liberal troll or somesuch. Wondering if it was just me who saw flaws in his arguments, I googled “Richard Murphy critique” or similar, and found this. Incidentally, it’s quite common on left-wing forums to be accused of being a troll if one dares to challenge the dogma. I was even once accused of being in the pay of the nuclear power industry because my dad used to work for the stationery dept of an electricity supply/retail company back in the 80s!

    The more I read Tim’s posts and the debates, the more it made rather more sense than the opposing arguments (by and large). I’d love to let Murphy know that his approach is counter-productive, but I doubt he’d appreciate it, or change.

    Like ltw says, “What he seems to be saying is that he feels his arguments are not good enough to stand up against opposition” and “I am accusing him of lack of moral fortitude and confidence in his arguments”. Like ltw, though, his gaff – his rules.

  15. Hey, I got my comment through! Got a lame response about legal issues and so on. I’ve got a new theory – he moderates so that no adverse comment sits there for people to think about for while without a devastating put down to counter balance it.

  16. without a devastating put down to counter balance it

    I’m not sure that “You are wrong because you are a neo-liberal troll” is actually as devastating a put-down as the LHTD seems to believe.

  17. When i post something half sensible on here I get torrents of abuse. As does anyone who doesn’t agree with the majority lunacy. just because it gets to stay on doesn’t mean it should. The commentors on Murphy’s blog are far more polite when an anti- message is let through.

    The fact is, this blog is just a site for childishly criticising people. All good fun, I’m sure, but it’s just as intolerant as Murphy, and much less informative.

  18. @ #25 Bemused
    Actually he has once
    @ Arnald
    “When i post something half sensible on here I get torrents of abuse.”
    The only time you did you got expressions of amazement. The torrents of abuse are mostly what you post.

  19. Arnold, which is better? To have comments censored by the blog owner leading to no discussion or debate, or to have all comments let through with readers able to comment on their views.

    In the former case you have to trust that the owner is only censoring offensive comments and not good comments that they don’t agree with.

    In the later case, it’s not the owner doing the censoring but the readers debating the points of an argument.

    Of course there will be a majority of one type on each blog, so in the case of Tim’s you will get right wingish commentators who will obviously shout down non-right wingish comments. But that doesn’t mean non-right wingish comments are banned. Far from it.

    All it means is that if you comment in a counter way to the rest us, you better have good argument to put forward your case. If you don’t have that, then you are rightly going to get the piss taken out of.

  20. “When i post something half sensible on here I get torrents of abuse.”

    You’ve never posted anything close to half sensible here. And if you had an honest bone in your flaccid little body, you’d know perfectly well that you are one of the most abusive posters on this blog.

    Oh yeah, you’re still a twat.

  21. Alex B @ 21.

    I followed a similar trajectory. In fact one of the things that most attracted me to “right wing” blogs was the general inclusiveness and sense of humour. Can anyone name a genuinely funny leftist blog ? I only knew of one and that got hardly any comments and is now defunct. On a blog like this you might get the occasional kicking but most of us are thick skinned enough to take it, whereas it’s a common theme at left wing sites that any form of robust contrary argument, never mind actual insult, is trolling, especially if the blogger is female when it will often be denounced as bullying.

  22. I have just tried to post this comment on his blog:

    “I refer you to your own promotion of a comment which promoted a falsehood, namely that you have never operated through a company, without letting a truthful comment that you have through, namely my own which pointed out that you had.

    I doubt this comment will be allowed through, but when comment policy is based on how flattering any statement is to the “editor”, I would call that the polar opposite of “speaking truth to power”.”

  23. ‘When I post something half sensible on here I get torrents of abuse’ – the usual Suspect (#24)

    That is the single funniest post I have read on any blog this year – the internet isn’t a great medium for irony…..

  24. Can anyone name a genuinely funny leftist blog ?

    Laughing with or at?

    For the former, “Mid-Wife Crisis” was an amusing look at the shenanigans of New Labour from a pre-1990s Labour viewpoint. Unfortunately now defunct – they’re less funny under Minibland.

    Plenty of the latter, of course, but the epitome is Councillor Terry Kelly. Left tends to the ernest – Unity’s blog is a classic example. Well written (usually), very well researched. Not funny – and not intended to be.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>