David Timoney
@fromarsetoelbow.bsky.social
Autonomous vehicle. Self-assembly required. May contain traces of critical theory. Retweets not necessarily a WTF
Blog: fromarsetoelbow.blogspot.co.uk
Blog: fromarsetoelbow.blogspot.co.uk
There is a general consensus among economists that austerity & Brexit were self-defeating, that the UK's public infrastructure is falling apart, and that the welfare safety net is dangerously frayed. Sooner or later a govt was going to have to address these facts.
November 27, 2025 at 12:33 PM
There is a general consensus among economists that austerity & Brexit were self-defeating, that the UK's public infrastructure is falling apart, and that the welfare safety net is dangerously frayed. Sooner or later a govt was going to have to address these facts.
"It's alive! The soft left is alive!".
November 27, 2025 at 12:19 PM
"It's alive! The soft left is alive!".
The pernicious influence of Bongo once more at work.
November 23, 2025 at 11:10 AM
The pernicious influence of Bongo once more at work.
This was a point that Hannah Arendt famously made in The Origins of Totalitarianism re antisemitism. "Scientific racism" was an upper/middle-class attempt to justify imperialism. Today, Le Grand Remplacement is not the product of "working class anger" but of rich white men.
November 23, 2025 at 10:56 AM
This was a point that Hannah Arendt famously made in The Origins of Totalitarianism re antisemitism. "Scientific racism" was an upper/middle-class attempt to justify imperialism. Today, Le Grand Remplacement is not the product of "working class anger" but of rich white men.
What Kenan Malik has failed to do here is distinguish between mundane bigotry (the "visceral") and programmatic racism. The language of "invasion" and "white decline" does not arise organically from working class anxiety or xenophobia but is imposed from above.
November 23, 2025 at 10:56 AM
What Kenan Malik has failed to do here is distinguish between mundane bigotry (the "visceral") and programmatic racism. The language of "invasion" and "white decline" does not arise organically from working class anxiety or xenophobia but is imposed from above.
Hard to shake the suspicion that these (very old) allegations have been revived now to contrast with the more wholesome racism of the govt's asylum plans. Tommy Robinson was wrong to say that the Overton Window has been obliterated, but it's certainly shifting.
November 21, 2025 at 9:53 AM
Hard to shake the suspicion that these (very old) allegations have been revived now to contrast with the more wholesome racism of the govt's asylum plans. Tommy Robinson was wrong to say that the Overton Window has been obliterated, but it's certainly shifting.
Legally, the state can seize your assets if a) they are deemed the proceeds of crime, or b) under bailiff powers for the repayment of debts (e.g. unpaid tax).
November 17, 2025 at 9:41 AM
Legally, the state can seize your assets if a) they are deemed the proceeds of crime, or b) under bailiff powers for the repayment of debts (e.g. unpaid tax).
Ironic that the Observer article on the BBC dodgy editing scandal has a picture of the wrong David Grossman.
November 16, 2025 at 9:00 AM
Ironic that the Observer article on the BBC dodgy editing scandal has a picture of the wrong David Grossman.
"The more obviously qualified Keir Starmer". If there is one thing the last year has disproved, it is the centrist idea that managerialism is a guide to political competence.
November 11, 2025 at 1:20 PM
"The more obviously qualified Keir Starmer". If there is one thing the last year has disproved, it is the centrist idea that managerialism is a guide to political competence.
A fine example of the conflation of City sources with "bond investors". The people who buy bonds are traders, but the people who invest in bonds, through pensions and other savings, are you and me. Thus we are assured that what the market wants is what we want: less welfare.
November 10, 2025 at 11:23 AM
A fine example of the conflation of City sources with "bond investors". The people who buy bonds are traders, but the people who invest in bonds, through pensions and other savings, are you and me. Thus we are assured that what the market wants is what we want: less welfare.
It is now routine in the media to occlude 2017 entirely from political history. This isn't simply because it undermines the narrative of fragmentation and the replacement of class interests with "identity", but because it was an election that the media spectacularly called wrong.
November 10, 2025 at 11:18 AM
It is now routine in the media to occlude 2017 entirely from political history. This isn't simply because it undermines the narrative of fragmentation and the replacement of class interests with "identity", but because it was an election that the media spectacularly called wrong.
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist.
November 6, 2025 at 5:50 PM
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist.
This allows him to sneer at the VAT zero-rate on clothes and food ("crisps"). He also forgets that the marginal propensity to spend is high for all income groups, not just the "poor", and only low for the rich (because they save most of their wealth).
www.economist.com/britain/2025...
www.economist.com/britain/2025...
November 6, 2025 at 5:34 PM
This allows him to sneer at the VAT zero-rate on clothes and food ("crisps"). He also forgets that the marginal propensity to spend is high for all income groups, not just the "poor", and only low for the rich (because they save most of their wealth).
www.economist.com/britain/2025...
www.economist.com/britain/2025...
But he then misdirects his audience by equating that wealth with income, i.e. wages, when the whole point is that an increasing proportion of wealth escapes income tax altogether. The rich haven't had their dividend, capital gains or inheritance pips "squeaked" (sic).
November 6, 2025 at 5:34 PM
But he then misdirects his audience by equating that wealth with income, i.e. wages, when the whole point is that an increasing proportion of wealth escapes income tax altogether. The rich haven't had their dividend, capital gains or inheritance pips "squeaked" (sic).
Duncan Robinson has turned in a classic Bagehot column in the Economist. His claim is that the left are against broad-based tax rises, such as on the base rate of income tax or VAT. Tbf, he does concede that this is because the left prefers to tax wealth rather than work.
November 6, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Duncan Robinson has turned in a classic Bagehot column in the Economist. His claim is that the left are against broad-based tax rises, such as on the base rate of income tax or VAT. Tbf, he does concede that this is because the left prefers to tax wealth rather than work.
Most people criticise the super-rich, the billionaries themselves don't give a shit about it, and only journos habitually question people's right to voice criticism. The actual rules of public discourse are that politics must be subordinated to personality, as here.
November 6, 2025 at 9:31 AM
Most people criticise the super-rich, the billionaries themselves don't give a shit about it, and only journos habitually question people's right to voice criticism. The actual rules of public discourse are that politics must be subordinated to personality, as here.
Amusing exchange bewteen Thomas Piketty and Joel Suss in the FT.
- Populism is a meaningless term used to delegitimise
- Yeah, but aren't the left populist?
- Populism is a meaningless term used to delegitimise
- Yeah, but aren't the left populist?
November 5, 2025 at 10:17 AM
Amusing exchange bewteen Thomas Piketty and Joel Suss in the FT.
- Populism is a meaningless term used to delegitimise
- Yeah, but aren't the left populist?
- Populism is a meaningless term used to delegitimise
- Yeah, but aren't the left populist?
What Marina Hyde cannot admit is that Labour's dishonesty became habitual in 2019 after the media's amplification of the party right's dishonesty going back to 2016 at least. To have been honest in 2024 would have risked questions being asked about those earlier shenanigans.
November 5, 2025 at 9:31 AM
What Marina Hyde cannot admit is that Labour's dishonesty became habitual in 2019 after the media's amplification of the party right's dishonesty going back to 2016 at least. To have been honest in 2024 would have risked questions being asked about those earlier shenanigans.
No word yet on his ethnicity. What are they trying to hide from us?
November 4, 2025 at 5:13 PM
No word yet on his ethnicity. What are they trying to hide from us?
Ironic that a self-styled cultural historian appears not to know that most of these strictures were common 150 years ago, as well as 100 years ago and 50 years ago. What's changed is the ethnicity of the supposed threat. Then Irish, Jews, Chinese, West Indians; now Muslims.
November 3, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Ironic that a self-styled cultural historian appears not to know that most of these strictures were common 150 years ago, as well as 100 years ago and 50 years ago. What's changed is the ethnicity of the supposed threat. Then Irish, Jews, Chinese, West Indians; now Muslims.
Beginning to wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize can ever recover from this.
November 2, 2025 at 11:31 AM
Beginning to wonder if the Nobel Peace Prize can ever recover from this.
There are many absurdities in this piece (e.g. Lucy Powell as a "disruptor"), but surely the most absurd is the idea that the "soft left" is actually engaged in an argument.
November 2, 2025 at 11:20 AM
There are many absurdities in this piece (e.g. Lucy Powell as a "disruptor"), but surely the most absurd is the idea that the "soft left" is actually engaged in an argument.
This is just sententious wibble. There are good options (as Mamdani is showing) for defeating Trump, not the least of which is to highlight the nature of US democracy, namely its craven abasement before private wealth and its disregard for public interest.
November 1, 2025 at 9:16 AM
This is just sententious wibble. There are good options (as Mamdani is showing) for defeating Trump, not the least of which is to highlight the nature of US democracy, namely its craven abasement before private wealth and its disregard for public interest.
This is a fairly common libertarian argument. What it omits is that one's actions often carry risks for others (externalities). Regulations exist to protect society more widely, rather than just the "high knowledge" (or high income) individual.
October 31, 2025 at 11:41 AM
This is a fairly common libertarian argument. What it omits is that one's actions often carry risks for others (externalities). Regulations exist to protect society more widely, rather than just the "high knowledge" (or high income) individual.
The irony is that conducting an interview through a Ring doorbell is clearly a higher level of due diligence than whatever the Times bothered to do.
October 30, 2025 at 10:20 AM
The irony is that conducting an interview through a Ring doorbell is clearly a higher level of due diligence than whatever the Times bothered to do.