• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

CyclopsRock
Banned
(04-21-2017, 08:29 AM)

Originally Posted by tomtom94

For me personally it's the last election and the £8 billion of uncosted welfare cuts. And the fact that while the Tories immediately began backpedalling on a whole load of other campaign promises, that was one of the few lines in the sand they wouldn't go back across.

I have sympathy for people who swallowed Cameron's idea of a modern, fairly liberal, business-friendly (European) Tory party, and I'd completely understand the sort of person for whom Corbyn is just too left-wing, but... basically people try to get out of it and say "well, it was the least worst option" or "I couldn't vote for Miliband", and that isn't good enough for me. If you vote FOR a party you should be able to justify that.

This isn't personally targeted at you, by the way, I'm just putting out there why people slip into it.

Have you ever voted for a party ever then? I mean I can't think of that many people who liked New Labours massive increase in health spending *and* their increase of the surveillance state, or benefitted from Sure Start whilst also being very on board with bombing Iraq. Fundamentally you can only cast your vote once and it's non-descriminatory; if you think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (to a larger extent than the other parties) then you're doing yourself out of representation on those benefits by not voting.
MightBeMagic
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 08:35 AM)

Originally Posted by KarneeKarnay

I agree. However I can't vote for the conservatives. Regardless of how the Brexit has been handled the government under Cameron and May have been seeking to cut spending on public services. The NHS is facing a cut of 0.6% even though it was promised that they would be given more funds.

Tories always damage the NHS. But, theres no chance the country votes for a far left Labour party, so they've wasted 7 years going in the wrong direction.

The quicker Labour get a centrist in, the quicker we can unseat the Tories.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:00 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by MightBeMagic

I'm not interested in making things more democratic. I just think voting should be something you're made to do. I find it frankly disgusting that for peers in my age group (18-25) turn out is only around 40% whereas for the oldest age group its 80%.

Apathy shouldn't be allowed. You need to vote because the decisions made will affect your life.

Everyone has an opinion on policy, but some arent prepared to cast a vote to maybe chanage that policy.

Do you think forcing someone to vote will make them less apathetic though?
TimmmV
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:03 AM)
TimmmV's Avatar

Originally Posted by MightBeMagic

Personally I'd make it illegal not to vote. The 'no point' argument doesn't wash with me.

People died for our right to vote, and politics affects EVERYONE whether you like it or not.

Conversely, people died for your right to choose not to vote too

Voting is supposed to be an informed decision. I don't think you would get that from people who are only doing so to avoid punishment.
Camp Freddie
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:04 AM)
Camp Freddie's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

ISideWith reckons I should vote SNP. If you'll excuse me, I'll be on the next train to Edinburgh.

Me too. I think it's simply because I believe in free education.

I'm apparently a left-wing authoritarian, which makes be somewhat sceptical of the results. I think it's because I believe in limiting privatisation in the NHS, railways and schools, and regulation of businesses. I think this is a bit silly, since this is just basic left-wing economic stuff. I don't believe in limits on individual freedom unless it's essentially limiting the freedom to unfairly profit from someone else's suffering. I'm a left-liberal (new-liberal/social-liberal) not a socialist.

It then says I agree with everything the (mainly conservative) country likes, everything the mainly Labour Yorkshire region likes, but completely disagree with my (wrongly) geolocated mainly Labour Pudsey area (because I'm not authoritarian left enough?)
I think their algorithms need some work!
MightBeMagic
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 09:07 AM)

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

Do you think forcing someone to vote will make them less apathetic though?

They dont have to vote for anyone. By all means spoil the ballot.

But the act of voting is the important part. Its being alone in that booth, with nothing but a pencil and a ballot paper, looking at a list of candidates and deciding who you think would best serve your local area and/or be the most effective in government.

If you dont bother going you have no idea what that thought process is. I'd want everyone to at least have to think.

My peer group are the most likely to moan about government decisions, but the facts say they are the least likely to mobilise to create change. Thats a disconnect that shouldn't occur. If you want change, make it. Dont expect others to do it for you.
MightBeMagic
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 09:09 AM)

Originally Posted by TimmmV

Conversely, people died for your right to choose not to vote too

Voting is supposed to be an informed decision. I don't think you would get that from people who are only doing so to avoid punishment.

You're missing the point. People can exercise their right not to vote by spoiling the ballot or leaving it blank. They just need to turn up.
Uzzy
(04-21-2017, 09:09 AM)
Uzzy's Avatar
I'm all for electoral reform so that more votes matter, so that it's easier to vote, even allowing for internet and phone voting.

But we shouldn't force people to vote. I don't think that would help improve engagement with the democratic process, it'd just cause resentment that it's another mandatory task.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:15 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by MightBeMagic

They dont have to vote for anyone. By all means spoil the ballot.

But the act of voting is the important part. Its being alone in that booth, with nothing but a pencil and a ballot paper, looking at a list of candidates and deciding who you think would best serve your local area and/or be the most effective in government.

If you dont bother going you have no idea what that thought process is. I'd want everyone to at least have to think.

My peer group are the most likely to moan about government decisions, but the facts say they are the least likely to mobilise to create change. Thats a disconnect that shouldn't occur. If you want change, make it. Dont expect others to do it for you.

The list of candidates doesn't really tell you anything if you've not been engaged in the political process up to that point. It's just a bunch of names. And that's really the crux of it - that's what you need to improve if you want everyone to vote. But it's hard! Saying "We'll fine everyone who doesn't vote" is a just quick fix that doesn't address the actual issue.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
(04-21-2017, 09:15 AM)
phisheep's Avatar

Originally Posted by Camp Freddie

I'm apparently a left-wing authoritarian, which makes be somewhat sceptical of the results.

I am apparently very boring, being slap-bang in the middle of that left/right/authoritarian/libertarian chart.

Probably explains why I mildly disagree with nearly everyone about nearly everything. God, I must be a pain sometimes.
TimmmV
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:19 AM)
TimmmV's Avatar

Originally Posted by MightBeMagic

You're missing the point. People can exercise their right not to vote by spoiling the ballot or leaving it blank. They just need to turn up.

People exercise their right to not vote by casting a vote? No sorry, I disagree
Last edited by TimmmV; 04-21-2017 at 09:21 AM. Reason: missed a fairly crucial word
Vagabundo
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:20 AM)
Vagabundo's Avatar

Originally Posted by KarneeKarnay

I agree. However I can't vote for the conservatives. Regardless of how the Brexit has been handled the government under Cameron and May have been seeking to cut spending on public services. The NHS is facing a cut of 0.6% even though it was promised that they would be given more funds.

Just for the record I think the theory is absolute bunk.
Jazzy Geoff
Banned
(04-21-2017, 09:21 AM)
Jazzy Geoff's Avatar
Morning ladies, what's new?

this mornings' lines seem to be

- French terror attack/effect on France's election
- generally favourable reviews of Corbyn's speech yesterday
- possible shenanigans surrounding the Unite elections (a Labour Party internal proxy war)
- Liz Truss' reform of probate charges (a stealth tax) kicked into the long grass and possibly into touch.
- Does and income £70,000 make you rich and should people who earn more than that pay more tax?
Ghost
Chili Con Carnage!
(04-21-2017, 09:23 AM)
Ghost's Avatar
ISideWith seems out of date on a few things to me, it still has labour as against Nuclear for example when they said new nuclear stations were part of their plans when campaigning for Copeland.
KingSnake
The Birthday Skeleton
(04-21-2017, 09:25 AM)
KingSnake's Avatar

Originally Posted by Zvonimir Boban


https://uk.isidewith.com/

Not from UK, but did this for fun:

83% SNP
82% Liberal Democrat
74% Green
73% Plaid Cymru
68% Labour
67% Sinn Féin
47% Democratic Unionist
44% UKIP
41% Conservative
35% British National

Now my sympathy for the Scottish cause is justified.
sionyboy
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:26 AM)
sionyboy's Avatar
Corbyn is in Cardiff today on the campaign trail. Addressing the masses at Whitchurch Common.

Sadly it clashes with the Champions League Trophy parade through the city.


CL Trophy being held by Ian Rush on an open-top bus, or Corbyn on a soapbox..... Not sure what is gonna win out there.

i know traffic is gonna be a nightmare today tho... Thanks Corbyn!
Camp Freddie
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:28 AM)
Camp Freddie's Avatar

Originally Posted by KingSnake

Not from UK, but did this for fun:

83% SNP
82% Liberal Democrat
74% Green
73% Plaid Cymru
68% Labour
67% Sinn Féin
47% Democratic Unionist
44% UKIP
41% Conservative
35% British National

Now my sympathy for the Scottish cause is justified.

I think the survey lacks the rather critical questions of "Do you think Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK?"
KingSnake
The Birthday Skeleton
(04-21-2017, 09:30 AM)
KingSnake's Avatar

Originally Posted by Camp Freddie

I think the survey lacks the rather critical questions of "Do you think Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland should remain part of the UK?"

That question would make the other questions useless in case of an "no", no?
Stop It
Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
(04-21-2017, 09:35 AM)
Stop It's Avatar

Originally Posted by CyclopsRock

Have you ever voted for a party ever then? I mean I can't think of that many people who liked New Labours massive increase in health spending *and* their increase of the surveillance state, or benefitted from Sure Start whilst also being very on board with bombing Iraq. Fundamentally you can only cast your vote once and it's non-descriminatory; if you think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (to a larger extent than the other parties) then you're doing yourself out of representation on those benefits by not voting.

I made this sort of point to my local MP.

Because of our FPTP system, it limits our political choices to an almost binary system. Just look what happens when we introduce a 3rd party into this like in 2010. The electorate wanted to punish the Lib Dems for "moving right" and in 2015 we went full Tory. Oops.

I love in a safe Tory seat so my vote matters little bit aside from hoping for a Lib Dem miracle we are boned. Cornyn is a joke and May has gone full Farage to head off the Kippers. Yes, May will win this election but our political system will be the loser, as will the country as it enables May to push us out of the EU in a potentially acrimonious divorce with little to no parliament scrutiny with a safe majority.
Halph n Halph
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:43 AM)
Halph n Halph's Avatar
60% Con
58% Lab
51% Lib Dem
50% Ukip
42% Green

Centrist

Your political beliefs would be considered Centrist on an ideological scale.

Not at all surprising .
I'm a little upset by the Green % but I support nuclear power and Trident renewal despite only last night accusing my wife of being an environmental hooligan with her lazy recycling attitude.
Stop It
Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
(04-21-2017, 09:49 AM)
Stop It's Avatar

Originally Posted by KingSnake

Not from UK, but did this for fun:

83% SNP
82% Liberal Democrat
74% Green
73% Plaid Cymru
68% Labour
67% Sinn Féin
47% Democratic Unionist
44% UKIP
41% Conservative
35% British National

Now my sympathy for the Scottish cause is justified.

Taking out the national parties, I am 70% aligned with Green and Lib Dems, a little bit more than Lab and less than half with the Tories and least with the far right scum UKIP and BNP.

That kinda reinforced my point. Even the so called fringe parties are a much of a muchness here. There's no incentive like in a PR system for actual differentiation between the parties. If you're centre left you will likely find just as much in common with any of the parties that aren't on the right.
Mr. Sam
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:26 AM)
Mr. Sam's Avatar

Originally Posted by Halph n Halph

Not at all surprising .
I'm a little upset by the Green % but I support nuclear power and Trident renewal despite only last night accusing my wife of being an environmental hooligan with her lazy recycling attitude.

I don't think support for nuclear power and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, which is probably why my Green % dropped too.
Newline
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:29 AM)
Newline's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jazzy Geoff

Does and income £70,000 make you rich and should people who earn more than that pay more tax?

It doesn't necessarily make you rich. Thats why I don't believe you should be taxed to hell like you're a rich person if you earn that much. We need to start taxing the 'asset rich' not the 'income rich'. People should be rewarded for working in specialised and challenging jobs. Also 70k in London is not the same as 70k in Yorkshire, the whole system doesn't work anymore. Those in decent jobs in London get boned right now and i'm not exactly enthused by the prospect of that getting even worse. However i'll never vote conservatives and might even consider voting Labour despite this.
tomtom94
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:33 AM)
tomtom94's Avatar

Originally Posted by CyclopsRock

Have you ever voted for a party ever then? I mean I can't think of that many people who liked New Labours massive increase in health spending *and* their increase of the surveillance state, or benefitted from Sure Start whilst also being very on board with bombing Iraq. Fundamentally you can only cast your vote once and it's non-descriminatory; if you think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks (to a larger extent than the other parties) then you're doing yourself out of representation on those benefits by not voting.

I couldn't vote in 2010 (though you could probably count me a burned Lib Dem supporter) voted Labour last time because I was very impressed with Miliband, and while I wish they hadn't got behind the controls on migration they had a better economic and social policies.

It may shock you to know I am not the biggest fan of FPTP.
Morat
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:34 AM)
Morat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

I don't think support for nuclear power and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, which is probably why my Green % dropped too.

Agreed.
Halph n Halph
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:46 AM)
Halph n Halph's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

I don't think support for nuclear power and environmentalism are mutually exclusive, which is probably why my Green % dropped too.

Agreed. The survey asked if I support nuclear power but didn't ask if I support clean rivers and beaches, if I support green belt protection ,increased protection and planting of forest and woodlands or the creation of more national parks.
Huw_Dawson
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:48 AM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar
Liverpool Lib Dem candidates confirmed this morning. My buddy Kris Brown will be standing against who-the-hell-knows in Liverpool Walton, and Liverpool Wavertree, which is a target seat, will have the veteran Richard Kemp standing. The other seats also have candidates.

We're a lot faster than the rest. :)
SlipperyFishes
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:51 AM)
SlipperyFishes's Avatar

Originally Posted by BBC

Green Party leader Steven Agnew's intention to join an anti-Brexit axis with Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance makes the front page of the Irish News.

Another anti-Brexit alliance for the Tories to attack and marginalise.

Meanwhile elsewhere in Northern Ireland from the same story (quasi on-topic)

Originally Posted by BBC

"Peter will not marry Paul in Northern Ireland," former DUP health minister Jim Wells has told the Belfast Telegraph.

Fucking hate this place. I hope the General doesn't lead more mindsets like this back to the front in England.
Par Score
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:52 AM)
Par Score's Avatar

Originally Posted by Roberto Larcos

Cameron voted against its repeal, May abstained. Which is still rancid, all things considered.

Oh? I was going by reporting in the Independent, Guardian, and Telegraph that all specifically says she voted against repealing it.

Bloody fake news, eh?

Originally Posted by phisheep

Times change, and ferreting out voting records from years back is not necessarily an indicator of current policy, motivation or individual stance.

Plus, the casting of votes on the losing side of a debate can quite often be thrown as a sop to the constituency party.

To take an extreme case, Labour claims to be the party of the NHS - but voted against the Beveridge report in 1943. That doesn't make Labour hypocrites. Just means the times and the circumstances were different.

As I hoped I'd made clear, I was not making some abstract point of principle, nor was I referring to particularly historic actions.

I don't care about why someone voted against gay rights, I don't particularly care if they've changed their position since. I certainly don't care about how "Labour" voted over the NHS 70 fucking years ago.

I care about the real, actual, damage done by current politicians to me and mine. I care about my childhood, and the childhood of thousands of others like me. I care about the attempted maintenance of stigma, a stigma that costs lives in the worst of cases, by currently serving politicians.
ferrasvansen
Member
(04-21-2017, 10:56 AM)
ferrasvansen's Avatar
Holy shit those retail sales figures are horrendous, a sure sign of price increases biting hard and it's going to get way worse. Considering our economy relies massively on consumer spending, this does not look good at all.
Stop It
Perfectly able to grasp the inherent value of the fishing game.
(04-21-2017, 11:06 AM)
Stop It's Avatar

Originally Posted by ferrasvansen

Holy shit those retail sales figures are horrendous, a sure sign of price increases biting hard and it's going to get way worse. Considering our economy relies massively on consumer spending, this does not look good at all.

While not a good look at all, the 1.8% drop in March can well be explained by Easter being late this year. If April is bad too, then the economy is hitting a slump.

Inflation will be contained ironically by the rising pound post call to election. It has recovered around 4% to the EUR since March.
Miles Quaritch
lemme stick dat Red Ring
(04-21-2017, 11:13 AM)
Miles Quaritch's Avatar

Originally Posted by Par Score

Oh? I was going by reporting in the Independent, Guardian, and Telegraph that all specifically says she voted against repealing it.

Bloody fake news, eh?.

You can look up voting history...

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10...ons?policy=826

Theresa May was absent for a vote on Local Government Bill — Maintain Prohibition on Promotion of Homosexuality (Section 28)

Absent in this context can be seen as voting against a bill but not wanting to be on record as doing so. See - Diane Abbott & A50 recently.
Last edited by Miles Quaritch; 04-21-2017 at 11:16 AM.
ferrasvansen
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:15 AM)
ferrasvansen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stop It

While not a good look at all, the 1.8% drop in March can well be explained by Easter being late this year. If April is bad too, then the economy is hitting a slump.

Inflation will be contained ironically by the rising pound post call to election. It has recovered around 4% to the EUR since March.


Yeah I understand the late Easter, but that was factored into predictions which reckoned we would have a 0.2% drop so I felt the drop is so much worse than expected that surely is bad news. It's also very noticeable in our weekly shop how much things are increasing by, I guess many households are feeling the crunch already.

I guess we maybe starting to see some of the reasons for the snap election appearing now.
Huw_Dawson
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:20 AM)
Huw_Dawson's Avatar
If folks want a laugh at Momentum's expense this election, I can heartily support following Maomentum on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/Maomentum_
Morat
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:23 AM)
Morat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Huw_Dawson

If folks want a laugh at Momentum's expense this election, I can heartily support following Maomentum on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/Maomentum_

Pretty weaksauce, honestly. One or two made me chuckle
mclem
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:28 AM)
Well, searching through the mire of misery, I guess I've found something that might count as 'good news':

Dimbleby's Back!

The last election was meant to be his last, but I guess this one being earlier than expected coaxed him back to the seat.
D4Danger
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:41 AM)
D4Danger's Avatar

Originally Posted by mclem

Well, searching through the mire of misery, I guess I've found something that might count as 'good news':

Dimbleby's Back!

The last election was meant to be his last, but I guess this one being earlier than expected coaxed him back to the seat.

they should've had him appear in the rafters on the night like a WWE event
QuicheFontaine
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:42 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar
Great to hear Dimbleby's back. Even when he retires he should still be present as one of those Tupac holograms.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 11:49 AM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuicheFontaine

Great to hear Dimbleby's back. Even when he retires he should still be present as one of those Tupac holograms.

He's already on that rap game.
QuicheFontaine
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:51 AM)
QuicheFontaine's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

He's already on that rap game.

WHY DOES THIS ONLY HAVE 583 VIEWS??
Spaced Harrier
Member
(04-21-2017, 11:58 AM)
Spaced Harrier's Avatar
The Viper Interviews Michael Gove on Brexit:

Https://youtube.com/watch?v=207YqHLwquw
Kotetsu534
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:19 PM)

Originally Posted by Newline

It doesn't necessarily make you rich. Thats why I don't believe you should be taxed to hell like you're a rich person if you earn that much. We need to start taxing the 'asset rich' not the 'income rich'. People should be rewarded for working in specialised and challenging jobs. Also 70k in London is not the same as 70k in Yorkshire, the whole system doesn't work anymore. Those in decent jobs in London get boned right now and i'm not exactly enthused by the prospect of that getting even worse. However i'll never vote conservatives and might even consider voting Labour despite this.

Lot of vitriol on the Guardian comment pages on this debate. I'm with you - it's those with vast assets, many multiples of the £48k take-home £70k gross will get you (subtracting tax/NI), that need taxed, not people earning a bit more than the higher rate band. IHT is far too easily dodged by the genuinely wealthy. But since the former is impossible without upsetting old people (cue the sombre film of a widowed granny in an oversized house), income tax is targetted. Ed Miliband was right on this.

I'm actually curious if you could even get a mortgage against a 70k income on an average London property (price £504k). This article suggests you need 77k in London, but doesn't explain the reasoning. The disparities between regions in terms of average wage against average salary of first time buyer are incredible - take a look.
danowat
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:23 PM)
danowat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jazzy Geoff

- Does and income £70,000 make you rich and should people who earn more than that pay more tax?

I think this is a futile argument, and will only led to dissent on all ends of the spectrum.

£70K is rich if you're earning minimum wage and struggling to make ends meet, it's not rich if you live in London with a whacking mortgage.

There needs to be a better metric of wealth than salary p.a.

That said, £70K is 5% of the population, so.........
PJV3
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:25 PM)
PJV3's Avatar

Originally Posted by Spaced Harrier

The Viper Interviews Michael Gove on Brexit:

Https://youtube.com/watch?v=207YqHLwquw

Speaking of that tosser, here are his thoughts.

"I expect the Conservative manifesto, and the Queen’s Speeches to follow, to be rooted in the concerns of those whom the writer David Goodhart has described as the citizens of Somewhere rather than Anywhere. Those who are rooted in specific communities, who aren’t living life from one Twitter storm to the next"

Plonker.
TimmmV
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:45 PM)
TimmmV's Avatar

Originally Posted by danowat

I think this is a futile argument, and will only led to dissent on all ends of the spectrum.

£70K is rich if you're earning minimum wage and struggling to make ends meet, it's not rich if you live in London with a whacking mortgage.

There needs to be a better metric of wealth than salary p.a.

That said, £70K is 5% of the population, so.........

Yeah, I can't really get past that figure. Its totally true that £70k goes a lot further in (say) Leeds than it would London, but you're still earning more than 95% of the country. I would assume that a £70k salary would still make you pretty comfortable in London too, just less so than had it been anywhere else in the country

Would definitely agree with the other posters that the "asset wealthy" aren't being focused on enough, nor are they paying their fair share of tax either
tomtom94
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:47 PM)
tomtom94's Avatar

Originally Posted by PJV3

Speaking of that tosser, here are his thoughts.

"Those who are rooted in specific communities, who aren’t living life from one Twitter storm to the next"

Plonker.

Isn't he a former journalist? That's an astonishing lack of self-awareness.
travisbickle
(04-21-2017, 01:07 PM)
travisbickle's Avatar
70K might seem like a lot to someone who is living hand-to-mouth, but when you're paying into a financial agreement to own assets that will be worth 100s of thousands of pounds, are spending money providing your children with an elite education, and putting away savings to make sure you can live well after retirement it doesn't seem like a lot.
IpKaiFung
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:10 PM)
IpKaiFung's Avatar
Im sure people can easily earn 70K if they had spent more time in school and worked harder.

/s
mclem
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:12 PM)

Originally Posted by tomtom94

Isn't he a former journalist? That's an astonishing lack of self-awareness.

He once did satire. Now he is satire.

Thread Tools