As I understand it, he’d have to pay off Capitol before releasing any new records, which he isn’t willing to do, so he’s hoping for a major label to come along and bail him out. I agree with you, though. It’s never been easier for independent artists to release music, and plenty of artists less wealthy and with less of a built-in fanbase than Morrissey manage to do so regularly.
The Smiths are my favourite band of all time, and I love a lot of Morrissey’s solo, but he played two shows an hour either side of me in the last week and I just couldn’t couldn’t find the energy to attend either.
“People like you make me feel so tired…”, to quote the man himself.
Blows my mind how many people have been brainwashed by American media, movies, culture. Everything you have said there and everything Russia have done has been completed by the US many times over
There is nothing wrong with using diplomacy alone with Russia. But it’s rather too late AFTER they have kicked off their invasion, unless it is Ukraine’s surrender one wants to negotiate.
Corbyn’s “I am against bombs and against helping Ukraine” = I am fine with Russia conquering Ukraine and annihilating it’s statehood and culture. Further, the horrific fate of Ukrainians aside, it also in a very spectacular way, says that one does not really see a strategic danger in Russia incorporating Ukraine into their empire.
After all, Russia has absolutely 0 reason to negotiate if they are winning on the battlefield and think they can reach their War Goals (which are not any kind of acceptable deal/s, but old school conquest of land and people), which they would have long ago if there was no Western aid. They have War Goals and will prosecute the war until those War Goals are met, unless outside interferance forces Kreml to change their calculus. But they will obviously only change their calculus if the war become too expensive for them. Which it hardly would, if Corbyn was in charge of things. Then their victory would be incredibly cheap in comparison to now. And revanchist irrendentist empires who get a cheap victory, well there is hardly an incentive to stop. Most people understand this if they just allow themselves to think for a minute, unless they are Corbyn and/or ideologically blind.
Those who want the war the end the most, is not Corbyn and his like, but it is Ukrainians. But they are not willing to be annihilated for “peace”, so they fight on. The only ones who actually want this war to continue, is after all, the Kremlin and their Tankie supporters. The rest of the world wants the war to end and for Russia to withdraw its armies. But they won’t do that if they think they can win a military victory and thus reach their political goals through force of arms. Obvious I would say. But it’s some how not obvious for everyone.
Probably still a Tibetan or two alive who would cock their eye at the ‘China does not invade’ line. Not sure what he thinks is revelatory here about America being an empire/hegemony/whatever you want to call it.
Or… it’s fucking astounding that in the West, (where we think of ourselves as the bastions of democracy, freedom and human rights) that it’s only a tiny minority of journalists that have the courage to speak the truth. And astounding that they would have to sleep with one eye open for stating the truth
Again, anyone who thinks in 2024 that the idea that the US is an empire of some form is somehow a revelation…well, I am just not sure what to say. For Europeans in particular, did you not notice that it was the empire that filled the vacuum when your colonial empires all collapsed? The Monroe Doctrine, as in President Monroe (1817-1825), is fundamentally a statement of imperial interest now starting into a third century. Other than the Gaza angle here, there is nothing he is not saying you cannot find in a 1990’s international relations textbook.
Yes, but my original point is that there is a general consensus on Russia like the statement below but little recognition/acknowledgement that America is no different
If one has to choose between evils (and unfortunately, one usually does in reality), most states and people tend to think that a very soft version of “ii” (USA) is after all is said and done, preferable to the draconic and repressive “i”.
" Two main ways to establish and maintain an imperial political structure: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force or (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power."
There is a substantial difference. In my view, anyway.
I think America is a little different, and probably less different now than a generation ago. From everything I have seen, being a vassal state of the Russian empire is a rougher ride. All things being equal, I’d rather not be a vassal state, but that is not really an option. Russia and China are more overt and direct in their control of their less expansive empires, so there is a little more scope for freedom and a little more scope for a rules-based order. But that never meant that there wasn’t a self-appointed judge.
Had Allende been a Canadian and pulled Canada out of NORAD, I think the only real difference from what happened in Chile would likely have been the tanks in the streets would have been American.
There’s no denying that the US, UK, and others have made errors—Afghanistan and Iraq being key examples. However, I think there are critical distinctions in governance, accountability, and intent that differentiate democracies from regimes like Russia (and China).
One of the most significant differences is democracy itself. In democratic systems, public opinion and opposition matter. For example, the Labour Party became unelectable for years due to the Iraq War—a direct consequence of public backlash (Its estimated 6M-10M protested in Western countries). Similarly, the public’s disapproval played a significant role in the decision not to intervene in Syria, even when there were compelling arguments to do so. These decisions may not always be right, but they demonstrate that people in democracies have the ability to influence their governments.
Contrast this with Russia, where political opposition is systematically crushed, journalists critical of the government face persecution, and ordinary citizens risk imprisonment for expressing dissent. There is no free press or freedom to protest, and many live with a genuine fear of windows, radiation tipped umbrellas, or those going on holiday to visit cathedrals.
Another major distinction is intent. Western countries have undeniably engaged in wars of intervention, but Russia’s actions are more overtly about colonisation and territorial expansion. The invasion of Ukraine is not about stabilising a region or removing a dictator (as flawed as those justifications might be). It is about subjugating a neighbour to expand influence and territory, under the guise of reviving historical empires.
None of this is to excuse the West’s mistakes but to highlight that democratic systems, however imperfect, allow for a level of accountability, self-correction, and freedom that authoritarian regimes like Russia’s fundamentally suppress. That, to me, makes the two very different.
Treasury’s analysis on the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU, shows a vote to leave will push the UK economy into recession - the Chancellor explains.
George Osbourne was the Chancellor, so of course it was his speech. The details of the speech were from the Treasury’s analysis.
So the speech/treasury analysis was misleading, the media were leading with this, it was stated on the Gov. website, the critics had to point this out but by then it is already in the public domain. It’s already being used in debate.
Just to clarify, regarding your Disinflation comment. The critics highlighted off the back of “The Speech” that house prices would be between 0.6% and 8.6% less in cash terms (2018) than they are now (2016). So if a house was worth £213,000 in 2016 and £226,000 in 2018, would the increase in price fall inline with the negative real cash value suggested?
Yet there was clearly a massive drop year on year from 2014-2015 before Cameron got his second term. It doesn’t matter how you try to spin the narrative the graph clearly shows that there hasn’t been negative Y-o-Y since 2012, which could be argued was a result of the banking crisis overseen by whom…
Little impact…based on deals in the pipeline. Really, the whole market is going to crash and you follow through on a deal, even paying a higher price for the first few months. Come on…
You are right, I do apologise. It had nothing to do with a 2nd Referendum because Labour didn’t put it in their Manifesto.
I was thinking of the European Parliamentary elections which were dominated by the Brexit party.
Intellectual humility……and celebrating your own ignorance? Hmmm
Well, that is a very play ground comment.
I have no bigger chip on my shoulder than you do to “Leavers”. I respect people who voted Remain, they used their right to vote for the path they believed in, as did the Leavers.
The point I am trying to debate with you and others is that I believe both sides used subjective statements to justify their point, convince the electorate and in this case it was no different, whether it be over promising or scare mongering and additionally, I responded to @Mascot post, where I suggested that what constitutes a lie depends on your political alignment.
Why do you see it as ‘me’ winning? Iv accepted the result of the referendum, if that’s what you mean? If I was to use your rhetoric I could say you lost, get over it. That doesn’t achieve anything though does it? Nor does the attitude of ‘Nothing but a shit future’.
The UK has faced some massive issues whilst being part of the EU, has it not? And it will face some massive issues going forward by not being a part of it.
Is the UK thriving post Referendum? No. Is that purely down to leaving the EU?? It is hard to say. My view, glancing at the graph trends (so pictures without context) is that the UK is following a similar pattern to the rest of the big EU countries. Again, without delving too much into the root causes, Germany, who we all pretty much use as barometer of success is under performing.
I get that a lot of people don’t agree with the referendum result, I get that it affects peoples situations. However, at the same time anything can be achieved with a positive attitude.
