[Andy McDandy]

Amusingly, and predictably, Fenton's pet twat hates Viner, saying she's a backsliding sell out and a Tory in disguise.

Then again, he says that about everyone.

[Tubby Isaacs]

My guess the The Guardian is sensing a generational shift in its potential audience. When Corbyn leading Labour, they didn't like him much, with Viner already the editor.

It's virtually constant unhelpful framing. Priti Patel has said the US strike is "essential" which is a mile further on than what Starmer or Jonathan Reynolds said, but the Guardian have made it sound like they said the same thing. "The main parties, maaaan, they're all the same". And if they're not- see Ed Miliband's budget going up- you get all the speculation that they were going to be the same.

Having said this, I'd probably forgive Viner if she sacked Simon Jenkins.

[Boiler]

Amusingly, and predictably, Fenton's pet twat hates Viner, saying she's a backsliding sell out and a Tory in disguise.

Then again, he says that about everyone.

I wonder how said individual feels about Ash Sarkar of Novara Media now being a regular participant on The Moral Maze these days?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I remember this story from a while ago.

Treasury threatens Defra with £4bn bill if Thames Water nationalised

Exclusive: Treasury threat an example of ‘scare tactics’ to help force through private sector deal, sources suggest

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tionalised

All I can see is that somebody produced an estimate. Where are the "threats"? Where does anyone say DEFRA would have to pay the cost out of its existing budget?

And, yeah, the example of Bulb (the government made a profit on that) is encouraging and there could be no cost. But that wasn't how the nationalization of Bulb was seen at the time it was happening. The OBR thought the loss to the Government would be £2bn. But hey, a "source" said, did they? Nationalisation has sounded more likely since then. The Treasury isn't very good at threatening, by the look of it.

[The Weeping Angel]

My guess the The Guardian is sensing a generational shift in its potential audience. When Corbyn leading Labour, they didn't like him much, with Viner already the editor.

It's virtually constant unhelpful framing. Priti Patel has said the US strike is "essential" which is a mile further on than what Starmer or Jonathan Reynolds said, but the Guardian have made it sound like they said the same thing. "The main parties, maaaan, they're all the same". And if they're not- see Ed Miliband's budget going up- you get all the speculation that they were going to be the same.

Having said this, I'd probably forgive Viner if she sacked Simon Jenkins.

Didn't they endorse Labour in 2017 and 19? Is this new potential audience the people who comment BTL? As for Simon Jenkins here's what he had to say about HS2.

[Tubby Isaacs]

They endorsed Labour in 2024 too, in fairness. But I get a sense (no more than that) of a sense that there's a new, younger audience out there for them.

Jenkins was editing the Evening Standard when Jim Callaghan was PM. I think we've heard enough from him by now.

[The Weeping Angel]

He must be costing them a lot in wages? Wouldn't it be easier to retire him and hire a younger, cheaper columnist?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well, indeed.

Do they even need a replacement? I'd be happier with more expert columns. Lots of experts can write perfectly readable stuff. The old editor of Rail, Nigel Harris, wrote a good column on HS2 (he was in favour, but thought the cost was being unnecessarily ramped up by the insistence that the constructors took all the risk for future condition). Unfortunately, he didn't write it in the Guardian, but The Spectator, who to their credit took the initiative of emailing him and asked him if he wanted to write something.