This is from another artist in the CWS mould called wefail:

Banksy's take on Claude Monet's "Water Lilies", called "Show me the Monet". Quite appropriate as it sold for £7.5 million at Sothebys:

Err Trike, as you may know I'm not British, I'm even a citizen of one of the countries that remain within the EU, so please forgive if I do not quite understand this, but would you kindly tell me whether I'm correct when I think there's a tiny trace of irony in this?

Nielsen wrote:

would you kindly tell me whether I'm correct when I think there's a tiny trace of irony in this?

More than a trace, Nielsen.

Can puppets count as an art form? The new Spitting Image is utterly daft, but I have to confess the sketch where Trump appoints his new little friend, "Coroni", as Vice-President made me laugh:



"Coroni, I like you! You're tough; you're smart; you're sneaky! I want you on my team!"

All goes well until the virus complains it doesn't feel very well and turns bright orange. It has caught a lethal dose of Potus45 from its new boss.

One that's been doing the rounds at the moment is a version of Harold Copping's illustration from an anthology of Dickens stories published in the 1920s. It could equally apply to Burnham's attempt to save the poorest in Greater Manchester from possible starvation this winter as to what the "artist" most obviously intends to convey - the UK government's frankly weird decision to ply billions of taxpayer's money into a big black hole called Dido Harding while refusing about twenty million to avoid children starving across the UK over Christmas.

It's one of Cold War Steve's recent offerings - as is this:






There is no doubt that there are many malnourished kids in the UK - there always have been. But emotive language such as "children starving across the UK at Christmas" is not helpful. There are many, many organisations making sure that food is distributed to anyone in need during the present crisis. Many in the government have hard hearts we know, but there are many more - even in the Tory party -  who do not. 

But the kids need something else as well as plenty of decent, nourishing meals: they need someone offering stability, hope and some kind of belief in a future - some kind of vision. Without vision the people perish, as some ancient person once said. There is a real famine where those things are concerned - and it's not just the kids from the bottom of the heap who are metaphorically "starving": plenty of posh kids are going without too. Ironic that many of them - boys as well as girls - are literally starving themselves these days as a perverse way of blotting out pain.

I've more respect for that young lad from Man. Utd. to be honest than for Burnham. I'm sure the latter is sincere - to a point - but he does have his eye on the future and not just just of Manchester's "starving" youngsters - but of the leadership of the Labour Party.

Temp wrote:

There is no doubt that there are many malnourished kids in the UK - there always have been.

In rhetoric this is known as an eristism, and when used to introduce an argument rarely bodes well for the rectitude of what follows, or at the very least - as you put it - is unhelpful. "The poor will always be with us" is no excuse for not ensuring that the most innocent among them can at least avoid starvation, and whether the initiative to do so is provided by a premier league footballer or an aspiring leader of the Labour Party is less relevant to the issue than the fact that those who ostensibly have actual responsibility for ensuring they can be fed are wilfully avoiding that responsibility with a callous, almost evil, indifference to their plight.

When something as fundamental to their life as basic nutrition is accommodated, then maybe even these people too can contribute in the future to sorting out and fixing that other great deprivation you highlighted. But first things first.

nordmann wrote:

... is less relevant to the issue than the fact that those who ostensibly have actual responsibility for ensuring they can be fed are wilfully avoiding that responsibility with a callous, almost evil, indifference to their plight...

I know it's not politically correct to say so, but some - not all - parents do avoid, or ignore, or are totally unaware of their responsibilities. Some are feckless (what an old-fashioned word), some drunk or drugged most of the time, some little more than adult children themselves. And that's just in the leafy, affluent Home Counties with regular Waitrose deliveries. There are a fair few up of them up North too - just as there are many poor, responsible, decent mums and dads everywhere who are just trying to do the best they can in impossible circumstances.

But no one need starve here - even with a mad right-wing government in power - that's the point I was making. You were being hyperbolic using that word.

We probably do really agree on all this - at least I hope we do.

PS I don't know what an eristism is - can't find it on Google anywhere. Is it one from old Aristotle? How embarrassing that I have unknowingly committed a rhetorical faux-pas. But you can't know what you don't know.

Temp wrote:

But no one need starve here ...

You would think this the case, in such an affluent country, I quite agree (as you assumed we all should). Yet, ignoring your eristic (again!) conflation of "starve" and "starve to death" and your odd eagerness to point out parental irresponsibility as a contributory factor, and simply using the medical dictionary definition as consuming insufficient nutrients to properly maintain a healthy metabolism, then I think you might care to actually look at the statistics as they presently apply within your country. Pay particular attention to recent months. In some parts of the country child illness related to malnutrition, and that's even with rudimentary access to "school dinners", has trebled. Incidentally, the same statistics apply for the over 65s within the same period. This should in fact be alarming you and maybe even prompting you to some kind of political action to remedy the cause, not leading you to point out how "unhelpful" the messenger of such bad (and seemingly hitherto unknown to you) news might be.

"Eristism", strictly speaking, means use of falsehoods when prosecuting an argument. However in the language of rhetoric it tends much more to mean falsely prosecuting an argument by prefacing it with leading statements which, though eloquent and partly germane to the topic, intentionally lead the listener to an incorrect assumption that what follows therefore carries weight. We are all guilty of it (it is largely unintentional and mostly only visible when pointed out), but you seem to be intent on some kind of record attempt today!

I found 'eristic' the adjective but I couldn't find the noun 'eristism'.  Here is a link to the Wikipedia definition of eristic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic.  I know caution has to be exercised when referring to Wikipedia but the meaning of 'eristic' seems in accord with that attributed by nordmann to 'eristism'.   It would appear it does come from Greek - "from Eris the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife and discord" - the quotation comes from the Wikipedia article I have linked.

I think I am more fortunate to be going through this difficult period as a retiree than as someone who has to worry about possibly losing her job.  My typing work has dried up (though there are other possible sources I can look at).  As a retired person I can keep any money I earn over and above my pension (though of course I have to pay income tax if I go above my personal limit) - if someone on the dole gets a part-time job over a certain amount (I don't know that current amount) the earnings from the part-time job is deducted pound for pound.

Deleted.