Nicola Sturgeon responds to concert attack by 'huge talent' Morrissey - The National

ExpectingToFly

Active Member
It's a sad day when Morrissey can find time to pick on Sturgeon but be so full of admiration for people like Nigel Farage. It's interesting that he appears to be attacking taxation (the recent, very modest, changes to income tax in Scotland were progressive in that they hit the wealthiest the most whilst actually reducing the tax burden for the poorest). The rise is needed to offset the budget cuts set by the UK government, in order to continue delivering public services like healthcare and education. It's a sensible measure which most people will think is reasonable, I'd have thought. For someone who hated Thatcher with so much brilliant venom, his hint that he is for low taxation seems to me the very epitome of Thatcherism. I guess money really does change everything!

I love the man, but he seems quite muddled politically these days.
 
F

firstodie

Guest
It's a sad day when Morrissey can find time to pick on Sturgeon but be so full of admiration for people like Nigel Farage. It's interesting that he appears to be attacking taxation (the recent, very modest, changes to income tax in Scotland were progressive in that they hit the wealthiest the most whilst actually reducing the tax burden for the poorest). The rise is needed to offset the budget cuts set by the UK government, in order to continue delivering public services like healthcare and education. It's a sensible measure which most people will think is reasonable, I'd have thought. For someone who hated Thatcher with so much brilliant venom, his hint that he is for low taxation seems to me the very epitome of Thatcherism. I guess money really does change everything!

I love the man, but he seems quite muddled politically these days.
I know what you mean my friend. Far be it from us to tell him how to think or feel. I"m hoping there's something he can see that I'm missing.....I hope I hope I hope he's as clever as I think he is .....he's got to be
 
V

vegan.cro spirit #13

Guest
You're the reason everyone thinks vegans are c***s.

I would wager you are a Nicola yourself, with your hand in the public pocket... how much are you taking us for, per annum? Probably the entire family is on the take.

Why don't you all get work so as not to worry how you are going to get someone else to pay for your stuff.
 

SeniorLife

Those who don't know, don't know, they don't know.
If I was to erase the names of the two going at it in this thread, and just read the posts, anyone with half a brain can see on one hand, you have well thought out arguments (doesn't matter if you agree with the principle or not, you can still judge an argument on how it's delivered) and on the other hand, you have unfounded insults, and completely made up and unfounded assertions.

Clearly, one of you is well read, and can deliver an argument to a (hopefully) reasonable person, and that person can deliver their counterpoint (without insults that are reserved for those who clearly having nothing of substance to add). But that is not possible here between you two. And that is clear as day (most likely to everyone except yourself).

Stop embarrassing yourself. If you want to come off as looking silly and uneducated (which you are accomplishing quite successfully), then carry on. You are free to speak your mind, a great and sacred privilege, but equally guaranteed, you are not free to coming off looking like a grammar-school child going up against an accomplished debater. You have some sound arguments, but you lace them with insults and vitriol, which devalues them.

My humble advice, which I have no doubt you could care less about, but I will offer anyway.....read a book.

Be well to both of you, as life is too short for this bickering, we collectively have to hold on to hope that communication, points, and counterpoints can be civil.
 

destiny

New Member
It's a sad day when Morrissey can find time to pick on Sturgeon but be so full of admiration for people like Nigel Farage. It's interesting that he appears to be attacking taxation (the recent, very modest, changes to income tax in Scotland were progressive in that they hit the wealthiest the most whilst actually reducing the tax burden for the poorest). The rise is needed to offset the budget cuts set by the UK government, in order to continue delivering public services like healthcare and education. It's a sensible measure which most people will think is reasonable, I'd have thought. For someone who hated Thatcher with so much brilliant venom, his hint that he is for low taxation seems to me the very epitome of Thatcherism. I guess money really does change everything!

I love the man, but he seems quite muddled politically these days.
I don't remember him liking any president or prime minister of any country. I have the same political opinion.

Assuming that it's a right wing opinion is not accurate; he devoted the whole of his American tour to criticizing Trump.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You sound like a bunch of oblivious college kids too lazy to get involved, or outline a platform you even care about. You're part of the problem.

The so-called "powers that be" love the "it's all futile" moaning. If you want real change, vote in local elections. Prime Ministers, or Presidents are not the real game changers in politics. It's local elections, and I guarantee you that most of you don't vote in those elections.

As for Morrissey, he simply targets anyone in a position of authority, and supports those who he knows won't obtain it. Like many uneducated faux rebels who pretend to be on the up and up, this allows him to remain untainted by endorsements, while still pretending to be somewhat of an adult about current events.

I'm not even certain why he dislikes her. Is it because of Brexit? He's for Scottish Independence, so is she, and she wants to remain in the European Union, so what's it to him? Does Morrissey realize that there are more important issues on the schedule than Brexit? I know it must pain him to see foreign faces in a traditionally white-bread country like England, but he's just going to have to get over it. Wrong side of history.

Morrissey is so removed from the daily struggles of the average person that all he can muster passion about now is petty, insecure nationalism. He hasn't spoken out aggressively in regards to any other issue, except police brutality, but that's a fairly easy rebel flag to wave around when you want to appear on the side of the underdog.

It seems he has now been reduced to being your typical disgruntled old fart, irked that he has to share his space with different kinds of people, and cryptically groveling over his tax status. In other words, he's become a cliche.

He can't even comment on these supposedly important issues in an adult manner.

Is he trying to push as much of his audience away as possible? Why would he even frame the issue to an audience in that way? What fight is he trying to pick? Who are his statements supposed to influence? What are the statements supposed to reveal about the issues? What's the point?

It now seems like the main purpose of Morrissey's career is him expressing his resentment towards everyone, and everything, and nothing else. There's no balance. No humor. Nothing touching. All salt, and vinegar.

People now talk more about Morrissey being an asshole than they do about his music. He is devoid of people skills. It may seem harmless when you're young, naive, and lonely, but at his age, there is nothing redeemable about being so emotionally stunted, and juvenile. It's the emotional equivalent of an elderly man wearing hip hop clothing.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
You sound like a bunch of oblivious college kids too lazy to get involved, or outline a platform you even care about. You're part of the problem.

The so-called "powers that be" love the "it's all futile" moaning. If you want real change, vote in local elections. Prime Ministers, or Presidents are not the real game changers in politics. It's local elections, and I guarantee you that most of you don't vote in those elections.

I've had the same MP since 1974. He generally gets twice as many votes as every other candidate put together. As for local elections, it's the same. You can fight for a side here but one side is going to win, these are the facts. Ever heard of Gerrymandering? My platform is for electoral reform btw.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't remember him liking any president or prime minister of any country. I have the same political opinion.

Assuming that it's a right wing opinion is not accurate; he devoted the whole of his American tour to criticizing Trump.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, Morrissey reflexively trashes any elected official, but he also has made it clear what his single motivating issue is, and that's nationalism; regardless of the handicaps it creates. To the point where, I can't even think of a reason why he would be opposed to Trump if he's for Le Farge, or Le Pen. It doesn't make sense outside of him simply pretending to hate everyone who gets elected.

He has not shown a keen interest about any other subject that matters in politics.

Like many aged voters who are resentful toward the culture due to the generation gap, his main concerns now seem to be his own petty interests, and not the other more important issues that may concern the broader public.

There's something odd that happened in British pop music during the seventies that imprinted in many of of its performers an element of xenophobia that you don't typically see in socially minded art movements in other countries. Maybe it was the loss of empire status after WWII, and the rise of immigration during the sixties that created that resentment, but whatever it is, it does seem unique to the British music scene of that time.

Maybe it's a hangover from the push for National Socialism, where you could flog the Liberal economic ideas, while still being tribal about who gets to benefit. America experienced something similar with FDR. He interred the "japs" while creating social programs that helped prop up rural whites. They were fine with this, until the Civil Rights era, when it became all about those "mooching minorities," and suddenly those same supporters came out against those programs, and wanted them destroyed.

It's always disappointing to see someone you admire adopt the paranoias of a savage.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
It was extremely racist and nationalistic here in the 70's though. The Brexit stuff and all the other bollocks you hear now is the last throw of the dice by people who've sat uneasily through the rest of us trying to get along for the last 40 years. To be fair to them they made a good fist of making the place tribal again. Unfortunately it appears that our man has emerged on the wrong side, he's always denied those leanings but... http://newsthump.com/2016/03/13/saying-racist-things-not-racist-say-racists/
 

destiny

New Member
If you don't get why he dislikes Trump, you do not need to guess, you can simply read why:

http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_160613_01

The "far-right" reactionary Morrissey was openly supporting Bernie Sanders. Could it be that he isn't what most people are assuming that he is? Very far from the far-right actually!

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, Morrissey reflexively trashes any elected official, but he also has made it clear what his single motivating issue is, and that's nationalism; regardless of the handicaps it creates. To the point where, I can't even think of a reason why he would be opposed to Trump if he's for Le Farge, or Le Pen. It doesn't make sense outside of him simply pretending to hate everyone who gets elected.

He has not shown a keen interest about any other subject that matters in politics.

Like many aged voters who are resentful toward the culture due to the generation gap, his main concerns now seem to be his own petty interests, and not the other more important issues that may concern the broader public.

There's something odd that happened in British pop music during the seventies that imprinted in many of of its performers an element of xenophobia that you don't typically see in socially minded art movements in other countries. Maybe it was the loss of empire status after WWII, and the rise of immigration during the sixties that created that resentment, but whatever it is, it does seem unique to the British music scene of that time.

Maybe it's a hangover from the push for National Socialism, where you could flog the Liberal economic ideas, while still being tribal about who gets to benefit. America experienced something similar with FDR. He interred the "japs" while creating social programs that helped prop up rural whites. They were fine with this, until the Civil Rights era, when it became all about those "mooching minorities," and suddenly those same supporters came out against those programs, and wanted them destroyed.

It's always disappointing to see someone you admire adopt the paranoias of a savage.
 

ExpectingToFly

Active Member
I don't remember him liking any president or prime minister of any country. I have the same political opinion.

Assuming that it's a right wing opinion is not accurate; he devoted the whole of his American tour to criticizing Trump.

Which sort of underlines his muddled and confused political positions.

I agree with you that he seems to default to a dislike of anyone in power, regardless of their political leanings (e.g. he was very pro-Obama pre-election, if I recall). To me, that's a bit immature, but I can understand it. My point was more in relation to the "hand in anyone's pocket", which I take to be a reference to taxation (I can't think of another explanation for that comment, but it is possible he had something else in mind). It seems to me a bit hypocritical to be bemoaning a progressive tax rise while at the same time complaining that "the rich must profit and get richer, and the poor must stay poor". Perhaps the rich folk he was talking about doesn't include him. He's also expressed support for both Sanders and Corbyn, who I'd suggest would have both the political capacity and will to significantly increase taxes on the rich were they to assume power.
 

destiny

New Member
Which sort of underlines his muddled and confused political positions.

I agree with you that he seems to default to a dislike of anyone in power, regardless of their political leanings (e.g. he was very pro-Obama pre-election, if I recall). To me, that's a bit immature, but I can understand it. My point was more in relation to the "hand in anyone's pocket", which I take to be a reference to taxation (I can't think of another explanation for that comment, but it is possible he had something else in mind). It seems to me a bit hypocritical to be bemoaning a progressive tax rise while at the same time complaining that "the rich must profit and get richer, and the poor must stay poor". Perhaps the rich folk he was talking about doesn't include him. He's also expressed support for both Sanders and Corbyn, who I'd suggest would have both the political capacity and will to significantly increase taxes on the rich were they to assume power.





Etcetera!

If you pay attention the confusion goes away.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I t's a shame because these people give him the time of day but he's not got the capacity to form meaningful conversation. He lets himself down at every juncture
He has no interest in having a conversation. When has Morrissey ever been open to debate, or cross examination? He's not quick on his feet when he's not allowed to reply with absolute statements, and witty dismissals. He doesn't really know. He's pretending to know. His brash statements are little more than his own version of Peacock feathers.

After all, this is a man who claimed that he doesn't have to justify his opinion.

He is detached. He has few responsibilities, and he dislikes people. The only point of his comments is to go against whatever's the popular sentiment of the day, and widen the gulf between him and his observers. If he was trying to influence people, then he would behave differently. Even on Animal Rights, the goal doesn't seem to be changing people's minds, but admonishing them, or framing them as lesser people. Shame rarely works when trying to alter behavior.

What I find nauseating is the people who respond to his style of communication with the tired, "He/She speaks his/her mind, and goes against the establishment. It creates conversation."

Bullshit. With bomb throwing, and shaming, there is no conversation being created. If anything, it usually derails it. Lines become hardened, and everyone is on the defense. People become less tolerant. It dumbs the conversation down.

Asking his audience if there's anyone who likes so & so is petty girl's locker room nonsense. So, what if there was someone who said they liked her? Then what? Was he going to shame an audience member like he did when someone innocently responded to his comments in Germany?

The reality is, Morrissey has been beclowned by the press with the aid of himself, and he's now seeking an outlet for that resentment by trying to create political wedges between him, and his audience. He knows the music press is watching in the shadows, and it's probably addressed as much to them, as to the concert goers. It's an act of defiance, and he has little to lose at this point.

It was better when he used to say nothing during concerts, and the odd grunt, or statement every tenth show would make you sit up and cry, "He spoke! What does it mean?"
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Some redistribution makes for a happier society with less crime though. Redistribution would of course be less necessary if there wasn't such a rigged game in terms of wages where one person can 'earn' 300 times what another does in the same company - added to that you can pretty much tell the background from where the people who get most of those top jobs come from, and just as importantly where they don't come from. You have to have a balanced economy and if you aren't run by crooks you might not have the rigged game that we have either.

I'm all for democracies, I just wish we had one.

Yes, a fair redistribution is the key. They should redistribute better before making people pay more taxes. When people's money comes to pay privileges of officials and others, poor remain poor and their number even increases as a way of justifying the increase of taxes we all understand we are being fooled into a huge fraud. The robbery of making people pay fortunes in taxes and redistribute misery to the rest of the society.
On the other hand, if economic crimes comitted all the time by rich people aren't duly prosecuted and punished, capitalism will continue broading the gap between rich and common people.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Which sort of underlines his muddled and confused political positions.

I agree with you that he seems to default to a dislike of anyone in power, regardless of their political leanings (e.g. he was very pro-Obama pre-election, if I recall). To me, that's a bit immature, but I can understand it. My point was more in relation to the "hand in anyone's pocket", which I take to be a reference to taxation (I can't think of another explanation for that comment, but it is possible he had something else in mind). It seems to me a bit hypocritical to be bemoaning a progressive tax rise while at the same time complaining that "the rich must profit and get richer, and the poor must stay poor". Perhaps the rich folk he was talking about doesn't include him. He's also expressed support for both Sanders and Corbyn, who I'd suggest would have both the political capacity and will to significantly increase taxes on the rich were they to assume power.

Exactly. I mean, when he pushed for Bernie once Hilary lost her indie cred, did he think Bernie was going to pass his platform with IOU's, and tax cuts? Did he even think that far? I doubt it, but it's odd to see him veer from pole to pole.

It seems he has two political masks: One American, and one English. In England, he's Kid Rock schilling for Trump, and in America, he's Paul Craig, and upset at America's version of Le Farge. What a dance.

I think Morrissey comes from a generation who were expected to speak out on politics if they were to be taken seriously as artists. These were a set of punk ethics that have pretty much died now, and I think Morrissey recognizes that having controversial political opinions is a good way to separate himself from the common pop artists.

Didn't Paul Weller admit to adopting some right wing pretensions early on as a way to separate himself from the common sentiment?

With Morrissey, it seems to often be about creating that distance between him, and everyone else, until he establishes his own orbit where critical opinion doesn't matter; even though it does.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I agree. Capitalism is far from perfect since the economical criminals, those who ruin the lives of millions, are not being prosecuted. Even more, sometimes they are presented as gurus by the media. Those crimes


Yes, a fair redistribution is the key. They should redistribute better before making people pay more taxes. When people's money comes to pay privileges of officials and others, poor remain poor and their number even increases as a way of justifying the increase of taxes we all understand we are being fooled into a huge fraud. The robbery of making people pay fortunes in taxes and redistribute misery to the rest of the society.
On the other hand, if economic crimes comitted all the time by rich people aren't duly prosecuted and punished, capitalism will continue broading the gap.

Great, when can I send you my bank account number so you can make a sizable deposit?
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
Yes, a fair redistribution is the key. They should redistribute better before making people pay more taxes. When people's money comes to pay privileges of officials and others, poor remain poor and their number even increases as a way of justifying the increase of taxes we all understand we are being fooled into a huge fraud. The robbery of making people pay fortunes in taxes and redistribute misery to the rest of the society.
On the other hand, if economic crimes comitted all the time by rich people aren't duly prosecuted and punished, capitalism will continue broading the gap between rich and common people.

Good points, for me fair distribution of income should come at the source rather than through taxation. Taxation should be used to pay for the services that you agree on as a society or as a safety net for those that can't work or are temporarally out of work, not really to redistribute wealth but if as a society you've set things up so the richest take the piss it's necessary. I don't know how we reached a point where we found it acceptable to pay one person 300 times what another earns in the same company but for me something went horribly wrong there somewhere and the sharp answer is that people in that company won't be getting their worth to the business - contrary to how capitalist theory works. It's more than a ten fold increase on the Thatcher era who most argued had a Laissez Faire economic approach. I guess a part of the problem is the running down of Unions and convincing us that Unions are a bad thing, they are at their most excessive but when we're paid well or have good working conditions those things were hard fought for by Unions. I don't like the idea of government intervention but without laws in place to combat piss takers then it all comes back to taxation which I think is the wrong way around to tackle the situation.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit #13

Guest
Incredible.
Not one tosser here thinks gainful employment is an option. Putting your hand in someones elses pocket is the overwhelming option . Have someone else go to work in the morning and then redistribute his earnings my way, while I sip at the pub all day.
Its not that you are a lazy sod, its that the world is not fair. If it were, "I would have a castley
in Lancashire".......... I think Moz has a strong point.
 
T

Truth

Guest
You sound like a bunch of oblivious college kids too lazy to get involved, or outline a platform you even care about. You're part of the problem.

The so-called "powers that be" love the "it's all futile" moaning. If you want real change, vote in local elections. Prime Ministers, or Presidents are not the real game changers in politics. It's local elections, and I guarantee you that most of you don't vote in those elections.

As for Morrissey, he simply targets anyone in a position of authority, and supports those who he knows won't obtain it. Like many uneducated faux rebels who pretend to be on the up and up, this allows him to remain untainted by endorsements, while still pretending to be somewhat of an adult about current events.

I'm not even certain why he dislikes her. Is it because of Brexit? He's for Scottish Independence, so is she, and she wants to remain in the European Union, so what's it to him? Does Morrissey realize that there are more important issues on the schedule than Brexit? I know it must pain him to see foreign faces in a traditionally white-bread country like England, but he's just going to have to get over it. Wrong side of history.

Morrissey is so removed from the daily struggles of the average person that all he can muster passion about now is petty, insecure nationalism. He hasn't spoken out aggressively in regards to any other issue, except police brutality, but that's a fairly easy rebel flag to wave around when you want to appear on the side of the underdog.

It seems he has now been reduced to being your typical disgruntled old fart, irked that he has to share his space with different kinds of people, and cryptically groveling over his tax status. In other words, he's become a cliche.

He can't even comment on these supposedly important issues in an adult manner.

Is he trying to push as much of his audience away as possible? Why would he even frame the issue to an audience in that way? What fight is he trying to pick? Who are his statements supposed to influence? What are the statements supposed to reveal about the issues? What's the point?

It now seems like the main purpose of Morrissey's career is him expressing his resentment towards everyone, and everything, and nothing else. There's no balance. No humor. Nothing touching. All salt, and vinegar.

People now talk more about Morrissey being an asshole than they do about his music. He is devoid of people skills. It may seem harmless when you're young, naive, and lonely, but at his age, there is nothing redeemable about being so emotionally stunted, and juvenile. It's the emotional equivalent of an elderly man wearing hip hop clothing.

Yes, teach us your amazing people skills!
 
T

Truth

Guest
Which sort of underlines his muddled and confused political positions.

I agree with you that he seems to default to a dislike of anyone in power, regardless of their political leanings (e.g. he was very pro-Obama pre-election, if I recall). To me, that's a bit immature, but I can understand it. My point was more in relation to the "hand in anyone's pocket", which I take to be a reference to taxation (I can't think of another explanation for that comment, but it is possible he had something else in mind). It seems to me a bit hypocritical to be bemoaning a progressive tax rise while at the same time complaining that "the rich must profit and get richer, and the poor must stay poor". Perhaps the rich folk he was talking about doesn't include him. He's also expressed support for both Sanders and Corbyn, who I'd suggest would have both the political capacity and will to significantly increase taxes on the rich were they to assume power.

I thought I remembered him being for Obama, too, but I could only find the #ObamaSoWhite quotes.
 
Top Bottom