I know it's for a good cause and money will be raised for it, but this song is so tired...couldn't they at least come up with a new one so they could spare our eardrums another tedious cover...I know Xmas no.1 doesn't mean anything any more since the birth of the anti music factory that is X factor, but feel band aid also makes for a boring Xmas no.1..and the cynic in me always feels like those that take part just do it for to promote themselves anyway...bah humbug

My girlfriend was showing me it. I thought the same. By the way the new version is sh*t the old one is great

It's an awful song with terrible lyrics ''Tonight thank God it's them instead of you''. Mind you it was written by Midge Ure so it was always going to be piss poor. This apparently is the fourth version of the song which is news to me.

My first reaction was "not again"  but actually when I heard it on the radio this morning - I did feel tingles.  I was I think mid-teens when the first one came out and I guess I remember how big an impact it made at the time.  Although none of the subsequent ones have been as good, I didn't think this one was too bad.  And yes, some of the original lyrics weren't great but it took me years to realise that - and they've changed "thank God it's them instead of you".  But I didn't think that was too bad personally - honest anyway!

"Feed a scouser, let them know it's Christmas time again".

Great cause, awful awful song.

Geldof is a twat.

Gets on my tits.

Geldof is a twat.

Gets on my tits.

And totally irrelevant in today's popular music scene. Which may explain the Band Aid rerun thing.

Too cynical?

And totally irrelevant in today's popular music scene. Which may explain the Band Aid rerun thing.

Too cynical?

 

Nope, on the money.

I hate all of these songs where they get loads of celebrities to sing one line each and they're all giving it the big'un trying to make their little bit stand out.

I hope it sells loads and loads of copies and they raise a sh*t load of money but please don't ever make me have to hear it.

Edited November 17, 201411 yr by bluedave

Just for that, this is a proper Christmas song:

 

I heard One Direction (downhill) is one of the acts in the mix. My mom's goddaughter will want to download that song for that reason alone.

 

I can see why they want to do it. It's a powerful song, it's anthemic. Don't get me wrong, I love it; I remember hearing it on the radio every Christmas season for as long as I can remember (it was released the year I was born) and thinking "if I was in a band, that song would be so much fun to do for a Christmas concert-everyone would get a chance to sing" .  I'll be the first to admit that when I heard it, I slapped hand against my face and thought "Not again".  Whilst I said that it's a great song, it's also quite dated. As in, it shouldn't be altered or adulterated, just left alone and enjoyed.

And totally irrelevant in today's popular music scene. Which may explain the Band Aid rerun thing.

Too cynical?

 

 

Irrelevant in today's popular music scene sounds good to me, Val!  It describes all my favourite songs!!

Geldof needs to wash his hair.

The Sky News interview was ridiculous, stupid question from the reporter just designed to piss him off.

They are all worth hundreds of millions. If they each donated 1M on top of the chart sales that would be seen to be a bit more genuine, rather than self serving.

Geldof needs to wash his hair.

The Sky News interview was ridiculous, stupid question from the reporter just designed to piss him off.

They are all worth hundreds of millions. If they each donated 1M on top of the chart sales that would be seen to be a bit more genuine, rather than self serving.

 

But they donated their time... And what's more valuable than that? 

"Feed the wor-orld

Give them lots and lots of ti-ime..."

 

Truth is, if the mega rich - and that includes any number of media "stars" - were to dig not too deeply into their pockets, the amount raised would far exceed any that could be garned from an occasional feel good exercise.

 

That's not how it worls though. The ultimate aim of the super wealthy is to become more wealthy still. I get the feeling that Geldorf would actually agree with this, but is realistic enough to know that the odds against these people relinquishing any more than the tiniest fraction of their overall assets are enormous.

The weatlth gap between the rich and the not so rich - not just the sick and the unemployed, but the vast majority of the population - is growing and continues to grow. Fewer people have a higher percentage of overall wealth than at any time since the Victorian era. For the ultra rich, the top 1% or 2% talks of cutbacks and economies do not apply.

 

For many of these people, it's actually in their interests, or at least they believe it to be in their interests (which effectively amounts to the same thing) to keep the overwhelming majority of the world's population in their place, at the bottom.

 

 

Explosion in wealth inequality needs urgent plan of action, says Oxfam

Report by charity contrasts devastating effects of deep recession alongside wealth of richest elite increasing by $0.5m a minute

The development charity Oxfam is calling for a seven-point plan to tackle the “explosion†in inequality after reporting that the world’s richest people have been left untouched by austerity and are seeing their wealth increase by half a million dollars every minute.

In a new report, Oxfam said that the number of billionaires doubled between 2009 and 2014 - a period in which many countries suffered deep recession, rising unemployment, welfare cuts and falling real incomes.

Earlier this year, the charity said the world’s 85 billionaires owned the same wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population. In its latest study – Even It Up – Oxfam said that this elite group had seen their wealth collectively increase by $668m (£414m) a day in the 12 months to March 2014. It found that it would take the world’s richest man - Mexico’s Carlos Slim - 220 years to spend his $80bn fortune at a rate of $1m a day.

With an endorsement from Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, the report said a 1.5% billionaire wealth tax would raise $74bn a year – enough to put every child in school and provide health care in the world’s poorest countries.

Since 2009, at least a million women have died in childbirth due to a lack of basic health services and around the world 57 million children are currently missing out on school, the charity said.

Mark Goldring, Oxfam’s chief executive, said: “Inequality is one of the defining problems of our age. In a world where hundreds of millions of people are living without access to clean drinking water and without enough food to feed their families, a small elite have more money than they could spend in several lifetimes.

“The consequences of extreme inequality are harmful to everyone - it robs millions of people of better life chances and fuels crime, corruption and even violent conflict. Put simply, it is holding back efforts to end poverty. Governments around the world have been guilty of a naive faith that wealth going to those at the top will automatically benefit everyone. That’s not true – it is their responsibility to ensure the poorest are not left behind.â€

The leaders of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have both called for action to tackle inequality. Oxfam blamed growing inequality on “market fundamentalism and the capture of politics by elitesâ€. It said the policy response should involve: a clampdown on tax dodging; investment in universal, free health and education; a global deal to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030; shifting the tax burden from income and consumption to capital and wealth; ensuring adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum income guarantee; equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal; and the introduction of minimum wages and moves towards a living wage for all workers.

Haldane said: “In highlighting the problem of inequality Oxfam not only speaks to the interests of the poorest people but also the wider collective interest: there is rising evidence that extreme inequality harms, durably and significantly, the stability of the financial system and growth in the economy. It slows development of the human, social and physical capital necessary for raising living standards and improving wellbeing. That penny is starting to drop among policymakers and politicians.â€

The report found that inequality between countries had widened rapidly between 1980 and 2002, before narrowing slightly due to the rapid growth in China. But it said that inequality had risen within countries, so that seven out 10 people lived in nations where the gap between rich and poor was greater than it was 30 years ago.

“Extreme inequality has exploded across the world in the last 30 years, making it one of the biggest economic, social and political challenges of our time. Age-old inequalities on the basis of gender, caste, race and religion – injustices in themselves – are exacerbated by the growing gap between the haves and have-nots,†the report said. “Oxfam’s decades of experience in the world’s poorest communities have taught us that poverty and inequality are not inevitable or accidental, but the result of deliberate policy choices. Inequality can be reversed.â€

 

 

I agree.

While people can argue about the things that Lady Thatcher did, it can't be denied that she destroyed the idea of community and of the obligation of the well off to assist or contribute to assisting the less well off.

Sadly, Labour have now brought into tory with a smal; 'T' ideas so much, and their leadership is such an out of touch, slave to PC bunch of w**kers, that there is no political choice.

I agree about the song.

 

'Never go back!; - unless you've left your keys there...

and actually... the song gives the impression that the whole of Africa is riddled with Ebola, whereas...

 

I want someone to ask Geldof, Bon and all those insufferable morons how much they are personally giving.

Geldof in the past, when confronted about not paying tax to the Irish government, he snapped back saying "I donate my time, is that not enough?"

 

And then there's Bono.  Two tax dodging pop stars telling others how to spend their money.  Sorry, but there's other ways I'd rather donate than through this sh*te again.   Dr's Without Frontiers would be a more fitting way to donate your money 

Just in case anybody really wants to buy a single to support the fight against Ebola but is put off by the possibility of encouraging Sir Bob to do more Band Aids in future: