I have, for well over a decade, met Mark Littlewood, the director of the Institute for Economic Affairs, on a regular basis. That is because we have presented the Radio 2 budget commentary for a long time, rarely agreeing on almost anything.
….
There are some people whose appointment to the Lords can only reinforce the case for its abolition. Mark Littlewood is one of them.
Says the man who blew his own chances by being greedy.
There are some people whose appointment to the Radio 2 budget commentary can only reinforce the case for the license fee abolition. Richard Murphy is one of them.
That’s better
Have you noticed how common this evidence for a tin ear, or a mutton head, is? To wit, writing shite such as “on a regular basis”.
All the twat means is “regularly”; almost always “on a weekly basis” means “weekly”, and so forth.
There are, it is true, people of taste and discrimination who can use “on a weekly basis” with precision. I’d quote you an example but I can’t remember the last time I saw it done.
Among the varous mental conditions diagnosed by commenters we can now add Ken Bruce Syndrome.
Richard Murphy being envious is enough to brighten any day.
@dearieme: Myself is in a position to agree with yourself at this moment in time, basically. Kind regards.
I think had Murphy been appointed to the Lords, Guy Fawkes would need to be reincarnated as a matter of some urgency. The notion that such a profoundly stupid and manifestly evil being could be in a position of unelected power is truly frightening. Very reminiscent of The late Dr Franz Six albeit somewhat more rotund in appearance.
@dearieme I would say “on a weekly basis” implies that the event may occur weekly but some weeks might be omitted. Being paid on a weekly basis means the dosh comes on Fridays. It does not mean being paid for weeks you don’t work.
So in Spud’s case, ” on a regular basis ” says not regularly. In which case, he’s being perfectly accurate.
And in passing: You can always depend on the God bothers putting their oar in, can’t you?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/06/christianity-can-end-the-trans-cult/
They are both a religion. A belief system. There’s certainly nothing rational about either. So the answer is to substitute one ex cathedra doctrine for another, is it? Brilliant!
It’d help if the Christian churches could make up their mind on what they believe on the matter, before you go any further.
For a professional grifter, the HOL must be the Holy Grail.
Once so nearly within his grasping grasp, it’s an open, suppurating wound for Murphy and that’s gotta smart!
Nah, BiS: all the twat means, in all probability, is that he meets him every time there’s a budget speech. Which isn’t regular anyway, as Chancellors rename their speeches from time to time. If sometimes a Budget is in the Autumn, sometimes the Spring, it ain’t “regular”. He just likes the pompous tone of it.
BiS, one of the things that Christianity teaches is that where there is a choice of evils, one must choose the lesser. Even if I were to concede that Christianity is evil (or for that matter irrational; I’d find it hard to accuse St. Thomas Aquinas of that), there’s not much doubt which evil is the lesser.
BraveFart
“Once so nearly within his grasping grasp, it’s an open, suppurating wound for Murphy and that’s gotta smart!”
The only thing that would top it would be for Spud to be ennobled and for Keith Starmer to then abolish the HOL as he has promised to do.
What a little bitch. He was probably really proud of himself at writing that.
@dearieme – “If sometimes a Budget is in the Autumn, sometimes the Spring, it ain’t “regular”.”
True, but if the radio programme is always in response to the Budget, it is regular. “Regular” as in conforming to a rule, so the programme can be regular even if the event it depends on is not.
Though he may mean “frequently”, which people often should be using instead of “regularly”.
Jimmers, this also applies to the tiny ex-Speaker.
“The notion that such a profoundly stupid and manifestly evil being could be in a position of unelected power is truly frightening.”
And none of the rest of them?
Gilbert and Sullivan already came up with the solution.
O/T But I am having some host problems over at mine, hence the completely unrelated site that you get directed to. Grandad of Headrambles is tinkering under the bonnet.
As you were.
On the subject of vermin, here’s a heartwarming little story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/07/uk-climate-activist-extinction-rebellion-stabs-fiance-death/
Crank, charlie, puff & begging outside Tesco were features of this upstanding member of the local community. (No mention of his astounding football talents or charity work? Oh! White. Right.) Good to see our old friend DEATH is still out on the job. Two removed from the board with one sweep of your scythe. Nice work BOSS!
“ and for Keith Starmer to then abolish the HOL as he has promised to do.”
If that was a cast iron guarantee he’d get my vote. I was a supporter of the HoL as it worked well until Blair’s constitutional vandalism left us with the cess put we have now.
“The only thing that would top it would be for Spud to be ennobled and for Keith Starmer to then abolish the HOL as he has promised to do.“
Only problem with that is Starmer would likely give them all a gold plated payoff so Spud would be very happy as he’d still be able to refer to being a member of the HoL in grant applications etc while getting money for doing nothing. Equally likely that Starmer make sure his cronies would get ‘elected’ or whatever process they follow to any new body that’s proposed so effectively double dipping
BiFR
Of course there are many appalling people in the house of Lords- however I can’t think of many people , even in my voluntary work in prisons whom I have encountered who exude more genuine malevolence and evil than Murphy.
Agree that Gilbert and Sullivan did get it right though
Does the House of Lords really need any more members? According to Wikipedia, there are 779 sitting members. The USA gets by with 100 members of its upper house and it has five time the population. Time for a cull, I think.
For its larger population the USA has 50 upper houses. If I remember from the last time I counted, the USA has about 2000 senators.
Doesn’t mean the House of Cronies shouldn’t be culled. Guy Fawkes-style, preferably.
@chris
“Myself is in a position to agree with yourself at this moment in time, basically. Kind regards.”
It’s literally ironic, irregardless.
surely the reason for abolishing the Lords is that it is entirely pointless. Apart from as a dining club for old folk.