I was waiting for this to happen - congrats on getting there first! That piece was so fucking pompous and, more importantly, not even funny. Look forward to reading this after work!
Of course, he moans about equality but stares at you blankly when you mention the Gini co-efficient (and he has certainly not aware of what it means). He witters about poverty, but is unable to appreciate the difference between "relative poverty" and "absolute poverty". And he is an insufferably smug git who, whilst spouting contextless quotes from Bevan or Keynes, could not tell you why they'd be horrified by today's scale of benefits and taxes (respectively).
I am not remotely upset by this light hearted article - despite being a Corbyn supporter myself- and I don’t think you need to be either. I haven’t read the NS piece but will certainly do so now.
This article made me smile as I recognised parts of it as I undoubtedly will with the NS one. That’s the point surely, they are caricatures?
One remark on your criticism of the £32k salary though, which you seemed particularly upset about…my reading of this was that it was precisely the point that £32k isn’t a high salary, but somehow this chap and his ilk manage to buy a place in London and live a ‘London lifestyle’ despite earning an average salary. Something most of us cannot achieve (presumably family money comes into play in a significant way). Don’t we all know people like that?
The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
Plus the writer of the original had absolutely no insight into the reading habits of, say, David Aaronovitch. He just seems to dislike him for some reason? The overall thesis of the NS piece is reducible to “I’m cleverer than you” - nothing more tbh
Just seems like you liked the original so dislike this satire of it. That’s fine. But no reason to go to all these lengths to criticise a swiftly written piss take of an astonishingly condescending + pompous piece in the NS who is probably quite well remunerated for the “ideas” he supplies us with. “Ideas Editor” - I mean come on man!
Why are you preempting my reaction? That’s just weird. You can have a problem with The Times being owned by Murdoch which is totally valid - I don’t like it either. But the idea that David Aaronovitch is in any way a supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump suggests you’ve never read anything he’s written. He has vociferously attacked both numerous times. Conflating Murdoch with anybody who writes for the publications he owns is frankly risible...
It’s a pretty speedily written - given the NS piece came out yesterday - takedown of an incredibly pompous piece in a well respected magazine. The original author obviously had much more time to write his piece. I just don’t get your criticism, it’s pedantic. Especially as this is just meant as a humorous retort (I assume). And it works for me!
Yours was better. End of story.
I was waiting for this to happen - congrats on getting there first! That piece was so fucking pompous and, more importantly, not even funny. Look forward to reading this after work!
Not so sure if this is New Stateman Man. Sounds more like Tribune Man to me.
Frankly I (born 1979) don't know which of these two caricatures I feel more seen by
I normally love the new statesman and find it v insightful, but that article is v v dumb and annoying and unnecessary
Please unapologise for writing this and write more of the same, its needed
Of course, he moans about equality but stares at you blankly when you mention the Gini co-efficient (and he has certainly not aware of what it means). He witters about poverty, but is unable to appreciate the difference between "relative poverty" and "absolute poverty". And he is an insufferably smug git who, whilst spouting contextless quotes from Bevan or Keynes, could not tell you why they'd be horrified by today's scale of benefits and taxes (respectively).
😂 well put. We all know the type 🙄
Wonderful
I am not remotely upset by this light hearted article - despite being a Corbyn supporter myself- and I don’t think you need to be either. I haven’t read the NS piece but will certainly do so now.
This article made me smile as I recognised parts of it as I undoubtedly will with the NS one. That’s the point surely, they are caricatures?
One remark on your criticism of the £32k salary though, which you seemed particularly upset about…my reading of this was that it was precisely the point that £32k isn’t a high salary, but somehow this chap and his ilk manage to buy a place in London and live a ‘London lifestyle’ despite earning an average salary. Something most of us cannot achieve (presumably family money comes into play in a significant way). Don’t we all know people like that?
The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
Plus the writer of the original had absolutely no insight into the reading habits of, say, David Aaronovitch. He just seems to dislike him for some reason? The overall thesis of the NS piece is reducible to “I’m cleverer than you” - nothing more tbh
Sorry you consider David Aaronovitch “right wing”???
Just seems like you liked the original so dislike this satire of it. That’s fine. But no reason to go to all these lengths to criticise a swiftly written piss take of an astonishingly condescending + pompous piece in the NS who is probably quite well remunerated for the “ideas” he supplies us with. “Ideas Editor” - I mean come on man!
Why are you preempting my reaction? That’s just weird. You can have a problem with The Times being owned by Murdoch which is totally valid - I don’t like it either. But the idea that David Aaronovitch is in any way a supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump suggests you’ve never read anything he’s written. He has vociferously attacked both numerous times. Conflating Murdoch with anybody who writes for the publications he owns is frankly risible...
It’s a pretty speedily written - given the NS piece came out yesterday - takedown of an incredibly pompous piece in a well respected magazine. The original author obviously had much more time to write his piece. I just don’t get your criticism, it’s pedantic. Especially as this is just meant as a humorous retort (I assume). And it works for me!