Why Rupert Murdoch considers it worth his while to pay David Aaronovitch a large six figure sum for such puerile antics as tweeting that I am insane, is a conjecture I find difficult to resolve. Today this exchange occurred on twitter:
David Aaronovitch: This suggestion that if elected Corbyn could be quickly ousted is utter bollocks. Democracy allows Labour to commit Hara Kiri.
Mark Doran: @DAaronovitch I hope everyone is watching how these servants of the micro-elite try to paint “attracting popular support” as “committing suicide.”
Mark Doran: @DAaronovitch Craig finds the elite-serving contortions every bit as funny as I do
David Aaronovitch: @MarkJDoran I tend to find Craig Murray unpersuasive on the grounds of him being unhinged. I can see why you like him, though.
Mark Doran: Says the man who managed to find Bush and Blair credible. I can see why you liked them, though.
It is remarkably ironic that on being referred to an article which argues that views outside a very narrow neoliberal establishment narrative are marginalised and ridiculed by the media, the Murdoch hack’s response is that the author is unhinged. Aaronovitch could not have more neatly proved my point.
But something else struck me about the twitter record. Aaronovitch’ twitter account claims to have 78,000 followers. Yet of the 78,000 people who allegedly received his tweet about my insanity, only 1 retweeted and 2 favourited. That is an astonishingly low proportion – 1 in 26,000 reacted. To give context, Mark Doran has only 582 followers and yet had more retweets and favourites for his riposte. 1 in 146 to be precise, a 200 times greater response rate.
Please keep reading, I promise you this gets a great deal less boring.
Eighteen months ago I wrote an article about Aaronovitch’s confession that he solicits fake reviews of his books to boost their score on Amazon. In response a reader emailed me with an analysis of Aaronovitch’s twitter followers. He argued with the aid of graphs that the way they accrued indicated that they were not arising naturally, but being purchased in blocks. He claimed this was common practice in the Murdoch organisation to promote their hacks through false apparent popularity.
I studied his graphs at some length, and engaged in email correspondence on them. I concluded that the evidence was not absolutely conclusive, and in fairness to Aaronovitch I declined to publish, to the annoyance of my correspondent.
Naturally this came to mind again today when I noted that Aaronovitch’ tweets to his alleged legion of followers in fact tumble into a well of silence. I do not even tweet. The entire limit of my tweeting is that this blog automatically tweets the titles of articles I write. They are not aphorisms so not geared to retweet. Yet even the simple tweet “Going Mainstream” which marked the article Aaronovitch derided, obtained 20 times the reactions of Aaronovitch’s snappy denunciation of my mental health. This despite the fact he has apparently 10 times more followers than me. An initial survey seems to show this is not atypical.
In logic, I can only see two possible explanations. The first is that my correspondent was right and Aaronovitch fakes twitter followers like he does book reviews. The second is that he has a vast army of followers, nearly all of whom find him dull and uninspiring, and who heartily disapproved en masse of his slur on my sanity. I opt for the second explanation, that he is just extremely dull, on the grounds that Mr Aaronovitch’s honesty and probity were never questioned, m’Lud.
I think it is more of the supply and demand question. I say get rid of green belt excuse and build more and prices will stabilise in time. Also disbalanced economy of the UK (where every 30p of the public money spent in London) drives house prices in the capital and SE where demand is the highest and supply is the shortest.
I say get rid of green belt excuse and build more and prices will stabilise in time.
I don’t. I say get rid of buying as a safe investment. Capital gains on all multiple house or flat sales by all owners after the first. Residency qualifications required for low rates of local taxation. No subletting or resale of properties bought from councils or housing associations for at least ten years after sale, as a condition of sale. Let’s shake out the maggots before subsidising McAlpine or whoever to convert the rest of these islands into a badly-planned urban disaster.
Another example of vindication of greed. Primark is the most unethical of all high street brands, hiding behind bending justice system in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-33687420
Next time when you buy £2 tshirt in Primark ask how many 7 years old children have spent their evening sewing it for you.
Most of what you have listed will not solve fundamental issue with housing shortage. The only valuable is heavily taxation of the capital gain when 2nd, 2rd and so on properties are sold, but even here it is unlikely to bring house prices down by much or stabilise them in long term. As it usually happens with common law, dozens of loopholes will be found and benefit landlords and their lawyers.
Increase in house building is the only measure which will ensure housing prices stabilisation in long term and avoid house prices hyperinflation.
Look at it soviet style. Artificially lowering demand did not work. Only when supply was matched with demand (after collapse of USSR) phenomen called deficit has disappeared.
Following on from Primark and all that:
“That’s the thing you gotta remember about WASPs. They love animals, but they can’t stand people.” Gordon Gekko.
Look at it soviet style. Artificially lowering demand did not work. Only when supply was matched with demand (after collapse of USSR) phenomen called deficit has disappeared.
No, that’s not soviet style, beg to differ. That’s post-soviet style. If you hand your tenant the firm promise of an effortless profit, he’ll buy He’ll get his mates or relatives to put up the deposit, because it’s risk-free. He doesn’t even have to go to the bank to get in. After Thatcher privatised council houses in just that way, prices for even crummy ex-public housing rose, and have continued to rise ever since. Pumping up the housing bubble is an intentional survival strategy as far as this economy is concerned. The rise in price has vastly outstripped the rise in demand: market forces pure and simple no longer operate here. And it may well be that this is becoming the case in the FSU, or will do.
O/T
I see Saif Islam, Gaddafi’s son, has just pulled himself a death sentence:
http://www.dailynews.co.zw/articles/2015/07/28/gaddafi-s-son-sentenced-to-death
To remind us of happier times, here’s our then-PM enjoying a waltz with Saif’s dad…
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/2/27/1298839591717/Tony-Blair-and-Muammar-Ga-007.jpg
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/07/going-mainstream/#comment-541355
I said that he gets a death sentence yet Cameron goes free.
@Uzbek,
Agreed that many home owners appreciate rises in house prices. I think older people who are pleased to leave more rather than less to their children are reasonable to do so, but for the middle-aged person with a mortgage the attitude often shows just how successfully debt atomises and anti-socialises people. For most owner-occupiers who are of working age, their homes aren’t as much of an asset as they believe.
I doubt that a price fall of 25% would put more than about 3% of the population into negative equity. But of course that would be 3% too many, and I take your point that those who are at risk of negative equity are being reasonable when they fear a price fall. That said, so long as they keep making the repayments their creditors won’t grab the house, so its market value doesn’t matter as much as they think. I have lost count of the young people I’ve met who naively believe that borrowing a large sum to buy a house, with the debt to be repaid over 25 years, makes them some kind of investor.
What I’d like to see is
1) the banks go bust
2) the government nationalise the charges on their debtors’ property titles (i.e. mortgages)
3) the government take ownership of the properties
4) the public authorities let people’s homes to them at subsidised rents, with secure tenancies, and with housing benefit (or rent rebates) in the case of inability to pay
Step 3) could be made voluntary. But if house prices were 10% of what they are now, and debt repayments the same as they are now, and monthly rents 25% of what someone would pay each month in their debt repayments, it would only be the village idiots who’d want to stay in a mortgaged position rather than the much more secure and financially advantageous position of being a social tenant – in the same house! Those who didn’t accept the offer would probably be paying the value of the house each year in mortgage repayments.
Of course many older people would not like being unable to leave so many £££ to their children, but most of what their children would spend those £££ on would probably be property anyway, so they should concentrate on how lower house prices would make things easier for their children and give them much more security.
“Those who own mortgaged property fear negative equity the worst. For them increase in their home value means cheaper mortgages”
Sorry but why does it? I’m not familiar with all the kinds of loans on offer.
“and better access to credit (and credit is a God now).”
If they’ve got a large debt secured against the house they live in, they should be limiting their expenditure, not borrowing more money to buy stuff. Some young people need to be brought to their senses by a quick slap upside their head. With “young” meaning until goodness knows what advanced age nowadays! 🙂
I would like to have a government that increases welfare benefits and makes it harder to borrow, not easier.
“For those who own outright (usually retired couples with grown up children) benefit from growing house value when they downsize or pay for their care. Their children also benefit from inheritance. Some homeowners (who benefited a LOT from house value growth and pay now pennies in their mortgage) re-mortgage in order to help their children with the deposit.”
Yes, this is a good point.
As for building, if the above programme doesn’t happen, as it probably won’t, then I’d be in favour of a) building more council houses and b) allowing people to buy small plots of say up to half an acre so that they can build houses on them without having to apply for planning permission, houses that are for them to live in and strictly not for resale – with tough enforcement of rules against profiteering and landlordism.
I still think that market forces operate here by large. It is true that on macroeconomic level housing bubble writes off (or more accurately devaluates) debts including government debts. But housing demand is the main weal behind housing prices growth. High housing demand (especially in London and SE) and short supply (somewhere I read that under 14 years of TB/Labour government house building was the slowest in post WWII history which coincided with the largest housing hyperinflation) encourages investment from landlords which in turn drives prices up. If you exclude exclusive areas of London where dirty money spin, most of the house prices growth occurs because landlords compete with home buyers and quite often outstrip them when it comes to making an offer. if you factor intra UK/intra EU and international migration to London and SE you get you recipe for house prices growth. Everyone with some capital would rather invest in property in London or SE (where supply of tenants is limited by virtually nothing) than put money into bank where interest rates will be eaten by inflation alone (not official inflation of course but real one including housing cost).
I still say that house building is the best answer. It will stabilise house prices in medium term, will make housing affordable to many otherwise be tenants, will decrease investment into housing from landlords (I actually think that many landlords will rush to cash in and thus bring house prices down) and will turn house into place to live and not store your money. There will still be tenants and still be private landlords and nothing wrong with that. But artificially lowering housing stock (which has been done since at least 1990th) in cope with cheap global money and poorly regulated financial services brought us to where we were few years ago.
TB would not be this successful if he has not had absolutely no sense of moral principles. People with moral principals end up like Mr Murray (kicked out from well paid jobs).
“Those who own mortgaged property fear negative equity the worst. For them increase in their home value means cheaper mortgages”
Sorry but why does it? I’m not familiar with all the kinds of loans on offer.
It is simple. You get your house revalued, if price increased your LTV have decreased meaning it is less risk for the bank to hold your debt. They offer you cheaper deal, so that you keep repaying your loan. The loan itself does not get decreased by interest get decreased very significantly if value of your house goes up. And interest alone in 25 years mortgage is almost 1.3 times of your loan.
You just have to read Aaronovitch’s article on child sex abuse, first printed in the Times, to realise that the man is out if touch with reality.
Here is part of his column, the rest is pay walled, by the Times but this site has large section of the article.
http://everydayvictimblaming.com/news/david-aaronovitchs-and-the-classic-panic-over-child-sexual-abuse/
1) the banks go bust
2) the government nationalise the charges on their debtors’ property titles (i.e. mortgages)
3) the government take ownership of the properties
4) the public authorities let people’s homes to them at subsidised rents, with secure tenancies, and with housing benefit (or rent rebates) in the case of inability to pay
Of all the above I would certainly like to see number 1. But I bid many people (pensioners most of them) would NOT like for this to happened. I cannot blame them as loosing life savings because of some fatcats reckless policies would be huge blow.
I am not fan of governmental ownership of anything but ministerial buildings. I was born, grew up and matured in society where government owned everything. It was ugly and I do NOT want to live in another society where this would be the case. I much prefer social housing stock to be owned by non profit housing associations (managed by people who live in those houses) which I am convinced will manage them better than government or councils.
I am fan of private ownership and I think that artificially created shortage of housing stock can be fixed by increased supply and resolve the problem in long term.
I’ll say one thing about Aaronovitch he’s certainly opinionated, not very articulate or effective but opinionated nontheless, a bit like a male version of Katie Hopkins, if you like.
https://mobile.twitter.com/daaronovitch
Of particular interest to readers in Scotland,
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Revelation media – a guiding hand behind Scottish Friends of Israel
While reluctant to give overdue notice to Israeli propaganda, a Scottish Friends of Israel (SFoI) decision to form street stalls as a means of countering pro-Palestine campaigns suggests a relative need to highlight some of their Zionist network, religious backers and hasbara output.
In an edition of televangelist channel Revelation TV (24 July 2015), presenter Simon Barrett has been talking to Nigel Goodrich, Co-ordinator of SFoI, about their campaign.
Goodrich has been instrumental recently in setting up pro-Israel street groups in Dumfries and Galloway, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and elsewhere.
/..
http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/revelation-media-guiding-hand-behind.html
.
“It is good to rise in a morning…and read a blog page of comments where consensus runs amicably through the comments in general agreement with the post.”
___________________
Yes, I’m sure it’s always cosy and pleasant when everyone else agrees with your point of view; the feeling that you must be right and that you are part of a community of one mind must produce quite a warm glow.
Someone of more cynical mind might however draw the conclusion that such threads are little more than a forum for the converted to preach to the converted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republicofscotland
I think this guy is classic Marxist. I do not claim that he believes in Marxist principles any longer, but he certainly has Marxist moral shell.
Marxists always believe that they are right (even when evidence shows that they are NOT) and they demand that everyone follows what they believe is right for common benefit.
Such a great wit too.
Palatino Linotype
@DAaronovitch Where did you by your followers from, David, and how much did they cost?
David Aaronovitch
@DAaronovitch Tesco Express. They’re on offer at the moment: £5 per thousand.
Lauren Alder
@LaurenAlder @DAaronovitch @PLinotype Not donuts, David. Followers.
Mark Doran
@MarkJDoran Did you folks read this article as well? From last year: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/04/david-aaronovitch-posts-fake-book-reviews-and-lies-about-why/
https://mobile.twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/625914458817339392?p=v
O/T, but just so ironic.
For God knows how long now US presidential runner Donald Trump has droned on about the “evils” of windfarms, and how they detract and destroy a countries tourism etc.
Remarkably Mr Trump has somehow fogotten to mention that he owns shares in a rather large wind farm company.
Mr Trump would make a excellent British PM.
http://news.stv.tv/north/1325389-donald-trump-owns-shares-in-us-wind-farm-company-nextera-energy/
Republicofscotland
One another characteristic of classic Marxist is that they lack sentiments. Idea(s) is more important than convenience of people. I have seen many classic Marxists in my life and despite turning 180 degree away from basic (economic) principals they have remained heartless and merciless when it came to other peoples’ feelings.
If you observe it carefully it is more common that Marxist will heat you in the face during heated debate than any other person.
N_
““Iran has achieved something”.
Don’t kid yourself. What is it to achieve to be allowed to produce a bit of nuclear energy so long as the Zionist entity stays as the only nuclear-armed power in the region, and not with ust 5 or 10 nuclear warheads either, but with several hundred?”
___________________
Reading the above, I get the distinct impression that you would be happy to see more nuclear states in the Middle East.
If I’m mistaken, I of couse apologise in advance. But if I am not, I wonder if you’d care to explain why you think that. In your reply you might also explain how in pratice you think more nuclear states might bring about an equitable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Iran has repeatedly called for a nuclear-free Middle East, in the UN and elsewhere. Surely that would be the best solution with respect to nuclear weapons in the Middle East. So why don’t we take up that call from Iran?
If the banks go bust, then the government will have to take over their assets, which include the charges on their debtors’ property titles.
Note that I made “government” the subject of 3 and “public authorities” the subject of 4. At the moment, many “not for profit” housing associations are structures allowing all sorts of fiddles involving e.g. maintenance. But some kind of not for profit bodies managed by people who live in the houses – yes, I could certainly go for that.
Increasing the housing stock by say 25% probably wouldn’t in itself change the price level by much. Banks would just say yum yum, we’ll lend lots more money. It’s not an excess of demand over supply that’s put the price level up, it’s a huge propensity of people to rush to get into ever more debt.
Abolishing the need for planning permission on small plots would change the game, though. Planning permission policy is an artificial restriction that allows land prices to be at maybe 100 times what they’d otherwise be.
@Habbabkuk – You are mistaken. I am in favour of nuclear disarmament of all states which have nuclear weapons.
Middle East Monitor: Veteran South African activist Denis Goldberg: Israel ‘an apartheid state’:
Note that he said this, not just about the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but also about Israel proper, where Palestinian Israeli citizens suffer several legal disabilities:
Surely a man with Goldberg’s history is qualified to judge what apartheid is. (Just as Desmond Tutu is.)
“Reading the above, I get the distinct impression that you would be happy to see more nuclear states in the Middle East.”
Habbabkuk, the important thing is that Israel has nuclear weapons in contravention of international law. It is classic chicken and egg. None of us would like to see more nuclear weapons, but there needs to be a deterrent against an apartheid country that goes to war at the drop of a hat. Would you not agree?
Israel made its nuclear weapons at its nuclear facility at Dimona. The reactor at Dimona went critical on December 26, 1963, almost one month to the day after the assassination of John Kennedy, who had opposed Israel’s nuclear weapons program and was starting to threaten Israel over it. Those threats ended on November 22, 1963, the day of the assassination.
Which is, I suppose, our Transatlantic Sage’s way of saying that JFK was assassinated because he opposed a nuclear State of Israel.
Oh dear, oh dear – so subtle.
“Habbabkuk, the important thing is that Israel has nuclear weapons in contravention of international law.”
______________
That statement is incorrect, Mr Goss. Israel is not in contravention of international law. If you want confirmation, ask Craig.