Talk:Nick Cohen

• Archive 1

Economic views

Cohen rarely writes on economic issues, but there is some evidence that his views there have shifted right-wards. In January 2007 in the Evening Standard he argued that couples earning 100,000 GBP a year were finding it difficult to survive financially in London due to the pressures of school fees, house prices and council tax, and unless the governing Labour Party addressed their concerns it would lose the next general election.

I think there were several problems with this paragraph. First, he has actually written fairly extensively on economic issues, see for example Pretty Straight Guys chapters 8-11. Secondly, I am unconvinced that concern that Labour will lose ground in London if it fails to address the concerns of middle class voters is in itself evidence of a shift to the right. Third, the argument is particularly weak in the context of the article cited, which also includes statements like "the council tax is a regressive tax that caps the bills of the wealthiest as it falls with all its weight on the less fortunate". As it's a short article which is not particularly notable for any other reason than its alleged evidence of a rightwards shift, I don't think a reference to it is warranted, so I've removed the paragraph. Aretnap 22:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Apologies if I've not quite understood how to format this.

I've restored the paragraph is a modified form, but I have no intention of getting in a wikipedia war over this so delete if you wish. However, to reply to your points.

1. If he has written extensively about economic matters, and I agree he has, then it is absurd for the article not to mention them. So I suggest contributors work on improving this paragraph rather than deleting it. I have made a small start in that direction and will consult PSG to add some more.

2. We're not talking about 'middle class voters' here, but those on £100,000 or more a year. This puts them in the top 3% of London households. The idea that they are short of money is palpably absurd, and that Cohen believes they are, in part because they can't afford to send their children to public schools, is surely indicative of a right-wing bias? If not, it is certainly indicative of a shift in his views. I will check, but I can't believe he made similar comments in PSG.

3. Yes you are right he talks about council tax being regressive, but this is in itself not consistent with the concern on those being paid £100,000 a year. There is no way in which you could have a system of local taxation in which those on £100,000 a year would be paying less than under the current council tax system. The Lib Dems local income tax would raise their bills by three or four times.

80.177.168.152 11:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Matthew

if the price was right

I have added the following paragraph to the end of the Domestic Politics section: 'In an article on the RCP's turn to the right, written in 2002, Cohen noted that "[f]ormer lefties can make a good living in the media by attacking their ex-comrades - I'd do it myself if the price was right." Critics of his recent change of heart believe that Cohen has found the right price.' I first came across the quote on the comments section of a blog -- can't remember which. I wasn't sure whether it was necessary to balance the last sentence and thought it best to leave it for someone else to rework. Or leave. I don't think it contentious -- but i must be clear on my own position, I do believe that Cohen's turn is partly motivated by the financial rewards of ex-leftism. I added the paragraph because I felt it relevant -- and because I was suprised the quote was not already in the article. -- james

This isn't factual or informative in any way and it's quite possibly libellous. It's just clumsy rhetoric that certainly isn't as clever as its author fancies. It doesn't even make any sense to the disinterested cynic. If Cohen really wanted to make money he would have found it easier, for example, to get a polemic against the Iraq war published than a rant about the decline of the Left.

[I should point out that, although I helped to write the Euston Manifesto, I am generally to the Right of Cohen and disagree strongly with him about many things, but I have no doubt that his views are genuinely held and unmotivated by financial concerns. Either way, it's not the business of an encyclopedia to speculate colourfully about people's private motivations.]

Counsell 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My paragraph was not libellous. I did not claim that Cohen's change of heart is merely financial. However, his book on the left is a bit shoddy and would be more appealing to the international market than the domestic one (I'm thinking of the USA here, Ann Coulter was a bestseller, after all). Who'd want to read another "iraq was a fuck-up" rant anyway? It's stating the obvious. Cohen has produced a more interesting commodity. He's a "leftist" who still supports the Iraq war! This is interesting!

I'll wait for your reply before I put the paragraph back. I hope you'll let me, because it really isn't libellous. Perhaps you could add something to the effect that Cohen's supporters insist he isn't interested in the money. -- james

The fundamental problem is that the paragraph in question was not factual or informative, merely sloganeering based on unsupported inference about Cohen's motives. Anyone coming to Wikipedia to learn more about Nick Cohen would gain nothing from the inclusion of this text. If there was independent evidence that Cohen had changed his views in exchange for money then that would be a matter of great interest, but there isn't. Those who want to read slurs against Cohen from his political opponents can browse the Web elsewhere for them. There's plenty to choose from.

It's the exact equivalent of inserting something like the following into an article about George W. Bush: "On the 10th October 2003 Bush said in a speech "We must fight for truth"; many of his opponents believe that he has lied again and again". It might make you feel righteous, but it's unsubstantiated opinion and rhetoric, completely out of place in a reference work. Assigning that opinion to unnamed others merely promotes it to unsubstantiated hearsay. Counsell 09:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, you're touchy about this, aren't you? I thought I was the one with nothing better to do -- you replied on the same fucking day! I take it you don't want the quote included in the article? Would I be permitted to include it at all? Does it not tell the reader something about Cohen's 360 turn? I think it does. The example you gave about Bush -- what's the problem? I think that'd be fine. If I claim something, then act in the opposite way, should this not be highlighted? Is it not relevant that I say one thing yet do another? Where's the hearsay -- he did write that article, didn't he? Am I mistaken? No?

The truth is, you don't want the quote by Cohen in the article because it *does* say something about him -- and his critics, perhaps. Would the reader not conclude the opposite? That Cohen's critics are cheeky bastards and hence, he comes off better? You don't believe this, do you? Obviously saying one thing and doing another... He's found his price all right. Et tu? -- james