He makes a big deal out of his MPhil (he literally just posted a picture of it on X) and his trading experience, so it seems reasonable to say he's partially making an argument from authority. That makes the authority worth scrutinising.

I would treat his claimed expertise with caution: www.ft.com/content/7e8b...

Yes, his name occurred to me -- he was a finalist for the NS/Speri prize, as was Wolfgang Streeck.

Mariana Mazzucato on state-led innovation, Simon Wren-Lewis (who advised Corbyn for a bit)... Kate Pickett (not an economist but working in the area). I thought James Meadway, ex-Corbyn, was also helping him develop policy.

This is a very good example of how the best interview questions are rarely hostile.

Delighted to report that my years of relentless pro-Larkin proselytising helped get Aubade into the TV series Devs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP4y...

They said it couldn't be done!

ah so you haven’t read it, got you

man, it would be SO embarrassing if the piece discussed the Khashoggi case and you just hadn’t read it before posting

Yeah, I know, I know.

As I say in the piece, public beheadings are no longer done. Also the comedians couldn’t “say what they liked” — that was very much the point of the piece. They agreed not to mock religion or the royals.

I mean, Jes Staley‘s friendship with Epstein was tolerated for many years until the bad publicity became overwhelming. And you know, I’m personally *proud* that the left (specifically feminism) has led on ending the culture of turning a blind eye to powerful men being sex pests 🤷‍♀️

It wasn’t a joke, though, it was ragebait. And this post is not a sincere clarification but an invitation to your followers to tell you that you were actually right all along, and you’ve been unfairly traduced—not least by framing me as “angry” when I was very polite.

Yeah; he was outed as a sex pest by the NYT, which is leftwing — plus, very clearly the right does not cancel people for being sex pests, cf the current US president. So it was a leftwing cancellation. That doesn’t mean it was wrong, which I think people are assuming was implied.

You've lost me here, I'm afraid.

Hey, if I write something dumb feel free to call it out. All I ask is that you read the piece first!

Yeah, I really went easy on Louis CK here. There’s no way you actually read the piece, is there? (Or, I’m guessing, any of my articles on the Epstein case.)

I know. I can't believe Jonathan didn't want to wingman. Something about "having a job of my own, thank you"