Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Starmer is still struggling to win Tory converts – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    Incidentally if anyone hasn't watched the interview with Kwasi Kwarteng and Cathy Neuman it's a classic. Well worth watching

    Neuman who usually specialises in Ch4 sex stories asks with a knowing smile 'Don't you feel a little uncomfortable losing £40 billion of the country's money in a matter of weeks'

    Kwarteng looking like he's being quizzed by an admiring first year GCSE student 'Come on Kathy. Every Minister makes mistakes'

    https://www.channel4.com/news/kwasi-kwarteng-refuses-to-apologise-over-his-time-in-office

    Where does this £40bn figure come from? The BoE made a £4bn profit.
    It comes from FBPE twitter.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,724
    Andy_JS said:

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    It would be swimming for me.
    Yes! this works great. Check the timetable online (your local council will do this) and pick a time when they do swimming in lanes, not when families are all in the undivided pool. Start of small (~10 lenghts) and try to increase your rate each month. It'll make you happier and fitter. Make sure to shower afterwards as the desquamation can be dramatic if you don't get the chlorine off.

    Swimming is by far the best non-pharma free solution for generalized anxiety, other than stacks of cash. But as ever DYOR and YMMV
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    @scottygb
    4m
    Breaking: Philip Schofield has stood down as host of #ThisMorning.

    Posted on his Instagram

    https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1659923213764239360
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,594

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    I've just cooked a bbq and drunk a lot of beer?

    Not sure it's in the self-help books but feel pretty amazing, to be honest.
    Good idea, I’ll do this evening’s pork chops on the barbie I think.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,362
    edited May 2023

    Farooq said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimS said:

    That one certainly made the most of his or her half hour or so of trolling. Quite an output.

    It is actually interesting to get a look in on the lines being taken by Moscow. I assume most efforts are directed at US social media hence the right wing themes and homophobia, as well as the mention of how much the support is costing (which is a very US isolationist style argument)...

    The strategy (such as it is) seems to be twofold.
    Get some sort of result in Bakhmut that can be presented as a win, and then attempt to stalemate and hold out for a Trump presidency.

    The culture war stuff is definitely targeted at the US right - several of whose leaders are directly echoing some of the Russian lines (presented here in somewhat absurd exaggeration this morning by the lamented Campunt).

    There's also still some dissent on the near-pacifist left like me, who totally dislike Putin's invasion and see it as neo-imperialism, but who aren't comfortable with how we're escalating step by step in order to get an outright win. The Guardian piece from Mariupol (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/18/its-like-the-ussr-residents-on-life-in-mariupol-a-year-since-russian-occupation ) is entirely pro-Ukrainian in sentiment, but concedes that a large majority of the people now living there are either pro-Russian or neutral. Are we justified in encouraging Ukraine to fight until they've overrun places like this?

    There are several counter-arguments. First, that Ukraine is indivisible, and we must encourage them to fight for every inch of its soil. Second, that the invasion must be punished by total defeat. And finally, that most of the pro-Ukrainian part of the population has simply fled - I don't think there has been explicit ethnic cleansing, but that's been the effect.

    On the first point, I don't think Ukrainian nationalism with its ongoing sympathy for Bandera et al is so wonderful that we should be assisting its most militant claims - if a segment of the country doesn't want to be run by Kyiv, we should hesitate to help kill people until they're forced to accept it. On the second point, the invasion has obviously failed in its objectives at enormous cost, and Putin won't fool anyone if he claims that a ceasefire on current lines or worse is a victory. The history of enforcing total victory (cf. WW1) isn't always encouraging in the aftermath, and we want Putin's successor to be more sensible, not more revanchist. The third point is the strongest, but I wonder if it's worth indefinitely continuing the war to insist that people who used to live in X are able to return and displace anyone now living there.

    It's not a popular view, and I hesitate to even express it (not least because I don't want to side with idiot far-right trolls), but I'd argue that there should be limits to how committed to total victory at any cost that we want to be.
    I sympathise with where you're coming from, but I think you are completely wrong.
    Not only that, I think some of the terms you're using are really questionable. "Overrun", for example. "Retaken" would be a neutral word here, since this is Ukrainian territory that was invaded by Russia.

    Invasions should be punished by total defeat. The best deterrence to aggression is the idea that it won't profit you. If you allow Russia to take by force X and then it gets to keep half of that, what's the lesson to the rest of the world? What then, the prospects of peace in the future?

    Another point is the stability of the international system. We have an organising principle of sovereignty which is inviolable except in terms of uncoerced agreement or in the case of egregious abuses. The latter should be tested in forums like the United Nations which, whilst they could be much better than they currently are, are still better than unilaterally deciding that these people are "ours" to protect even when they live there.
    If we want to thrown away that organising principle, we have to have a sense of what system would be better. Might is Right ain't an option, that way lies paleo-imperialism and wars of extermination. So without proposing a better system, we'd better be ready to defend this one.

    Some of your points are contradictory. You can't have an indefinite war and an aftermath.

    You can't make comparisons with WW1 when there's very little to no appetite for occupying Russia and destroying its economy. Most people who want Russia to lose want the scope of that defeat to mean their removal from all Ukrainian territory. Not to take more land than was Ukraine's 10 years ago. Not to hobble Russia past the time of hostilities.

    We mustn't get stuck in the rut of assuming the worst from Western motives. Even in the light of Iraq, which is commonly seen as aggressive misadventure, our governments aren't all bad. Ours is certainly are much better than Russia's government. We should judge actions and episodes separately and be ready to say that there we were wrong, here we are right.
    I partly agree with this. I think the West has been wrongly blamed for Libya, for instance, but, in a separate area, is wrongly avoiding scrutiny for what is now emerging about the leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army, a movement that the West backed with a bombing campaign.

    A key issue, though, is that there is the rules-based order you're describing, and I agree should tend to be defended, and then the complexities and fallibilities of the West, which has sometimes set itself up as the incarnation of the defence of that rules-based order.

    While I think Putin should be strongly resisted, it's important to note that his public attitude to Western statements on such an order changed considerably after Iraq.

    He thinks the order is meaningless because the West has often acted hypocritically in this area ; this isn't quite correct, but it bears more scrutiny and self-examination in the West that it has sometimes received in the last year, partly understandbly, as it faces an adversary clearly more authoritarian than itself.
    According to Dr Palmers theory, the Palestinians should just shut up, since there is very little chance of them getting any land from Israel? And it's full of Israelis, so....

    If making ethnic cleaning work is OK, then this will make wars far more fun.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,594
    Taz said:

    Todays wordle, for those who still do it, is a tribute to @Heathener

    Took me 5, with 3 similar tries in a row. Very frustrating.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,724
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    Scott_xP said:

    @scottygb
    4m
    Breaking: Philip Schofield has stood down as host of #ThisMorning.

    Posted on his Instagram

    https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1659923213764239360

    Shocked !!
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,724
    Scott_xP said:

    @scottygb
    4m
    Breaking: Philip Schofield has stood down as host of #ThisMorning.

    Posted on his Instagram

    https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1659923213764239360

    A historic moment. People will ask me in years to come "What were you doing when Pip Schofield left, viewcode" and I will answer "Stuck indoors on a politics website when I should be outside in the sun"... :)

    Incidentally, did anybody ever say out loud what it was Philip and Holly were arguing about?
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    Roger Moore, a name and a mission statement, is the best Bond.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,139
    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    I've just cooked a bbq and drunk a lot of beer?

    Not sure it's in the self-help books but feel pretty amazing, to be honest.
    Why would you cook a bbq? The tradition is that you use it to cook meat rather than cook it directly.
    Maybe the "drunk beer" phase occurred prior to the cooking, leading to the error?
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,724
    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    Roger Moore, a name and a mission statement, is the best Bond.
    I think I've had the conversation with you as to why Moonraker is seriously underrated. Although he did seriously age out in his later years.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    viewcode said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @scottygb
    4m
    Breaking: Philip Schofield has stood down as host of #ThisMorning.

    Posted on his Instagram

    https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1659923213764239360

    A historic moment. People will ask me in years to come "What were you doing when Pip Schofield left, viewcode" and I will answer "Stuck indoors on a politics website when I should be outside in the sun"... :)

    Incidentally, did anybody ever say out loud what it was Philip and Holly were arguing about?
    Well I’m outside at a lodge in Lincolnshire drinking home made ginger wine when I found out.

    It’s a JFK kind of a moment, as Alan Partridge once said.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    Weapons grade nerdery here, but relevant- the TLDR is Labour getting non-uniform swings and doing a pretty efficient job of getting what they need where they need it;

    https://twitter.com/lewis_baston/status/1659898517815525382


    Interestingly, swing is much higher in seats with a Labour history of some sort - most formerly safe seats lost in 2017/19 swung back hugely, as did some marginals held in 1997-2010, while some of the misses were in first-time targets (Altrincham, Macclesfield, Worthing West)...


    https://twitter.com/lewis_baston/status/1659899698419736576

    Isn't that a "tell": a good sign for Labour? If it's getting bigger swings where it needs it, then it's maximising its chances.
    It does seem good but is this really surprising?

    The stupid thing the Tories believed - and I said so at the time - was that the seats that went Tory had somehow changed and would never vote Labour again. Despite the fact they'd voted Labour under Brown, Ed M and even Corbyn the first time.

    It was Corbyn that lost those seats and presented the Tories with a chance to keep them. They have failed and because Starmer is not Corbyn and more like Blair, it is not surprising to me at all that seats that used to vote Labour are now voting Labour again.
    Corbyn, yes, and Brexit too. Johnson did a great job at GE19 of consolidating the Leave vote, which was heavy in those seats. This factor has gone now, as has Johnson, as has Corbyn. This is why GE19 is a false baseline for assessing the next one. The 'mountain' Labour need to climb is nothing like as high as it appears.
    I think the Tories were relying upon some strange psycho-cultural event taking place amongst the Red Wallers: having voted Tory once, and felt the warm water and the invigorating breeze, they would continue, untroubled, in their Tory-voting nirvana for ever. Personally I always thought that the 'Did it once, nivver again' mentality would prevail. (And I'm usually right.)
    Yes, hard to see why they'd vote Tory now. It's actually hard to see why anyone would apart from true blue loyalists and hardcore right wing culture warriors. 33% is their ceiling, I feel.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    edited May 2023
    viewcode said:

    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    Roger Moore, a name and a mission statement, is the best Bond.
    I think I've had the conversation with you as to why Moonraker is seriously underrated. Although he did seriously age out in his later years.
    Yes we have discussed it. Moonraker is my favourite Bond movie, I make no apology for that either 😂🤣
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    viewcode said:

    Andy_JS said:

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    It would be swimming for me.
    Yes! this works great. Check the timetable online (your local council will do this) and pick a time when they do swimming in lanes, not when families are all in the undivided pool. Start of small (~10 lenghts) and try to increase your rate each month. It'll make you happier and fitter. Make sure to shower afterwards as the desquamation can be dramatic if you don't get the chlorine off.

    Swimming is by far the best non-pharma free solution for generalized anxiety, other than stacks of cash. But as ever DYOR and YMMV
    That's my main exercise, swimming. No risk to the joints which has to be considered when you're beyond the first flush.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.

    The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.

    As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.

    That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.

    That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.

    History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.


    In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.

    Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.

  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @scottygb
    4m
    Breaking: Philip Schofield has stood down as host of #ThisMorning.

    Posted on his Instagram

    https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1659923213764239360

    A historic moment. People will ask me in years to come "What were you doing when Pip Schofield left, viewcode" and I will answer "Stuck indoors on a politics website when I should be outside in the sun"... :)

    Incidentally, did anybody ever say out loud what it was Philip and Holly were arguing about?
    Well I’m outside at a lodge in Lincolnshire drinking home made ginger wine when I found out.

    It’s a JFK kind of a moment, as Alan Partridge once said.
    Who are they?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    One or two possibles: Avoid news and allied stuff (like PB) altogether for several days and reintroduce very slowly. Low sugar diet. The best works of PG Wodehouse and Mozart. Vitamin D. Omega 3. Personally I think a higher rather than low fat content in diet helps but this is controversial for other reasons. Sun but not too much. Big skies. Detective novels of the 1930s. Lying under a tree by running water. Small babies.

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    You never know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    Taz said:

    Moonraker is my favourite Bond movie, I make no apology for that either 😂🤣

    You can ask the mods to delete that post later, when you sober up...
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    Exactly. All that time spent reading Trollope and Dickens and playing with the grandchildren, and reading them books when I could have been watching daytime telly.

    Who is Philip Schofield?
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,417
    algarkirk said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.

    The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.

    As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.

    That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.

    That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.

    History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.


    In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.

    Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.

    It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?

    Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231
    algarkirk said:

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    One or two possibles: Avoid news and allied stuff (like PB) altogether for several days and reintroduce very slowly. Low sugar diet. The best works of PG Wodehouse and Mozart. Vitamin D. Omega 3. Personally I think a higher rather than low fat content in diet helps but this is controversial for other reasons. Sun but not too much. Big skies. Detective novels of the 1930s. Lying under a tree by running water. Small babies.

    The last is particularly delicious now that BBQ season is here.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,055
    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    Is it that long since Richard and Judy did it?
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    One or two possibles: Avoid news and allied stuff (like PB) altogether for several days and reintroduce very slowly. Low sugar diet. The best works of PG Wodehouse and Mozart. Vitamin D. Omega 3. Personally I think a higher rather than low fat content in diet helps but this is controversial for other reasons. Sun but not too much. Big skies. Detective novels of the 1930s. Lying under a tree by running water. Small babies.

    The last is particularly delicious now that BBQ season is here.
    Couldn't eat a whole one.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231

    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    Is it that long since Richard and Judy did it?
    I am not that familiar with what goes on in their marriage but that seems unlikely.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522

    algarkirk said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.

    The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.

    As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.

    That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.

    That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.

    History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.


    In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.

    Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.

    It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?

    Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
    Indeed. There still needs to be a system for simple folk like me to turn polling into seats in a rough and ready way.

    A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.

  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,566
    edited May 2023

    algarkirk said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.

    The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.

    As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.

    That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.

    That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.

    History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.


    In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.

    Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.

    It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?

    Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
    I don't think many people expected Cameron to win a majority in 2015 with a lead comprising of 37% to 31%. A lot of that was down to the fact that the LDs weren't expected to be reduced to just 8 seats.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955
    RobD said:

    Roger said:

    Incidentally if anyone hasn't watched the interview with Kwasi Kwarteng and Cathy Neuman it's a classic. Well worth watching

    Neuman who usually specialises in Ch4 sex stories asks with a knowing smile 'Don't you feel a little uncomfortable losing £40 billion of the country's money in a matter of weeks'

    Kwarteng looking like he's being quizzed by an admiring first year GCSE student 'Come on Kathy. Every Minister makes mistakes'

    https://www.channel4.com/news/kwasi-kwarteng-refuses-to-apologise-over-his-time-in-office

    Where does this £40bn figure come from? The BoE made a £4bn profit.
    Yeah, but they blew it on hookers and cocaine.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    Scott_xP said:

    Taz said:

    Moonraker is my favourite Bond movie, I make no apology for that either 😂🤣

    You can ask the mods to delete that post later, when you sober up...
    Come on, it’s not like I’ve praised Radiohead or Pineapple on Pizza !
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,144
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.

    The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.

    As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.

    That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.

    That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.

    History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.


    In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.

    Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.

    It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?

    Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
    Indeed. There still needs to be a system for simple folk like me to turn polling into seats in a rough and ready way.

    A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.

    ‘Great’ in what sense ?

  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    Taz said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.

    The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.

    As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.

    That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.

    That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.

    History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.


    In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.

    Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.

    It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?

    Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
    Indeed. There still needs to be a system for simple folk like me to turn polling into seats in a rough and ready way.

    A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.

    ‘Great’ in what sense ?

    In the sense of approximating to good egg, does political journalism without bombast, member of the good chaps club of the political world. Broadly manages to appear as if he is not a sociopath, psychopath, narcissist or maniac. Hold his beliefs rationally and subject to the possibility of being wrong.

    In his world these are not trivial achievements.

  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,139
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    Exactly. All that time spent reading Trollope and Dickens and playing with the grandchildren, and reading them books when I could have been watching daytime telly.

    Who is Philip Schofield?
    Gordon the Gopher's sidekick.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,139

    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
    Tarnation. I didn't get to this before posting.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    Next time somebody mentions LiVARpool I shall remind this wasn’t a red card.


  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955
    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    I got him on to the gays.

    Went downhill from there.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    I got him on to the gays.

    Went downhill from there.
    Does the same schmuck get the assignment every week, or is it a punishment rota?
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,104

    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
    It was a great time to be alive.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    I got him on to the gays.

    Went downhill from there.
    Does the same schmuck get the assignment every week, or is it a punishment rota?
    Different schmuck every week.

    I hear they pick somebody at random from the Radiohead fan club pineapple on pizza fan club.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,104
    viewcode said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @scottygb
    4m
    Breaking: Philip Schofield has stood down as host of #ThisMorning.

    Posted on his Instagram

    https://twitter.com/scottygb/status/1659923213764239360

    A historic moment. People will ask me in years to come "What were you doing when Pip Schofield left, viewcode" and I will answer "Stuck indoors on a politics website when I should be outside in the sun"... :)

    Incidentally, did anybody ever say out loud what it was Philip and Holly were arguing about?
    I'm going to say it, although I know it's basically a heretical statement: I've always found Holly Willoughby a bit annoying.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378

    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
    It was a great time to be alive.
    I know.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231

    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    I got him on to the gays.

    Went downhill from there.
    Does the same schmuck get the assignment every week, or is it a punishment rota?
    Different schmuck every week.

    I hear they pick somebody at random from the Radiohead fan club pineapple on pizza fan club.
    Still beats being at Bakhmut. Just.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,104
    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,216
    Dura_Ace said:


    It's not a popular view, and I hesitate to even express it (not least because I don't want to side with idiot far-right trolls), but I'd argue that there should be limits to how committed to total victory at any cost that we want to be.

    Some people on here get genuinely angry if you don't hew to the party line on the Malorussia situation.
    Are you really the Count of Missingo, or do you just pretend?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231

    Next time somebody mentions LiVARpool I shall remind this wasn’t a red card.


    Blatant obstruction by Gapko.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,959
    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    First tip: don't accept advice off the internet. ;)

    Second tip, ignoring the first: everyone is different, and those who have coping mechanisms may well have very generalised ones. I don't often suffer badly from anxiety nowadays, but when I did whilst younger, I used to go ballistic: go for a long walk/limp into the countryside. It used to help me, but I can imagine it may make it worse for others...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    Big Sam to relegate Everton next week?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955
    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    I got him on to the gays.

    Went downhill from there.
    Does the same schmuck get the assignment every week, or is it a punishment rota?
    That's a really interesting question.

    My guess is that it's a bit of both. A few months ago, we had a really excellent troll, who was able to chat on a range of subjects, and - sure - would always make sure to get Kremlin talking points in there, but was always interesting.

    One thing that "impresses" me, is that they clearly keep files on various PB users. So, they all seem to know that (a) I used to work at Goldman Sachs, (b) I live in Los Angeles, and (c) I have a startup auto insurance business.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,959

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,959

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    I got him on to the gays.

    Went downhill from there.
    At first I thought you were referring to Philip Schofield...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955
    Has everyone read the article in this weekend's FT about the growing, lucrative, business of private prosecutions?

    https://www.ft.com/content/135ab383-5df7-4824-bed5-1199e60a8597

    "The British private investigator taking criminals to court when the state won’t"
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887

    Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.

    Dalton the best actor in the worst film, and Lazenby not the greatest actor in the best film of the series
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,959
    Scott_xP said:

    Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.

    Dalton the best actor in the worst film, and Lazenby not the greatest actor in the best film of the series
    I think that's a bit harsh on Licence to Kill, but a good rule of thumb.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
    Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.

    Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.

    The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)

    No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
  • Options
    londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,185
    Everton staying up ...
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887

    I think that's a bit harsh on Licence to Kill, but a good rule of thumb.

    Actually since Spectre came out License To Kill is no longer the worst in the series.
    rcs1000 said:

    If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie.

    No
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,104

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
    I'd put Connery first, followed by Craig. I associate Moore with crap jokes and crap special effects. I'm not a Bond superfan though. I like them but prefer the Bourne films.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955
    Scott_xP said:

    Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.

    Dalton the best actor in the worst film, and Lazenby not the greatest actor in the best film of the series
    Lazenby is - sadly - not a great Bond. Which is a shame, because everything else about OHMSS is excellent.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952

    Everton staying up ...

    Mmm.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955
    Scott_xP said:

    I think that's a bit harsh on Licence to Kill, but a good rule of thumb.

    Actually since Spectre came out License To Kill is no longer the worst in the series.
    rcs1000 said:

    If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie.

    No
    License to Kill is better than you remember, and certainly much better than (to name a few):

    Quantum of Solace, Diamonds are Forever, and most of the later Brosnan movies.

    Spectre is weighed down by an absurd side plot about Five Eyes intelligence sharing, but there's nothing wrong with the core. It's just there's 100 minutes of decent in a two and a half hour movie.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,559
    Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Mike Lindell’s $5 million contest winner takes him to federal court

    A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.

    The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”

    In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.

    Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”

    Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.

    They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.

    “There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.

    Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.

    “It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”

    Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.

    The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.

    Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”

    Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.

    Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Dammit, I missed the weekly troll.

    I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.

    Did he mention vaccines?
    No, very focused. Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine, and Gays.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 595
    Sean_F said:

    Penddu2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Penddu2 said:

    To all unionists who are depressed at the results coming in from Northern Ireland.... I suggest not looking at Swansea today....

    Our time is near....

    Polling suggests that your time is a long way off (and even in Northern Ireland, too).
    36% is not yet a majority -but it is a large minority.....and growing.

    We can wait a bit longer
    Yougov has it at 25%.
    The latest poll from Redfield Wilton from 2 or 3 days ago.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    edited May 2023
    Still my favourite ever Bond scene.

    https://youtu.be/LE1evIbc3mw

    I needed oxygen in the cinema when I first saw this scene.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,559
    Re: pillow-monger and mega-MAGA-maniac Mike Lindell, note that his once-ubiquitous ads on US el cheapo broadcast TV, have (mercifully) disappeared from their airwaves in recent weeks.

    My guess is that his alleged defamer and obvious nutjob, is yet ANOTHER of Trump's henchpeople, enablers, etc., etc., who has been driven to moral, political and perhaps fiscal bankruptcy, due to their hooking their fortunes to those of the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    @KennyFarq

    Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.

    https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1659952780776288258
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Mike Lindell’s $5 million contest winner takes him to federal court

    A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.

    The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”

    In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.

    Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”

    Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.

    They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.

    “There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.

    Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.

    “It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”

    Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.

    The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.

    Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”

    Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.

    Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .

    What's scary is that Lindell (and Ginni Thomas) are sincere in their views. They genuinely believe that the Democrats somehow stole the election by fraud. And once you start with that premise, then suddenly everything you do is justified.

    Trump knows he lost, but he cares only about how people see him, and he can't bear to be thought of as a loser. And therefore he pushed the story about fraud, because it made him not a loser.

    And then Fox News amplified it, because it was what its viewers wanted to hear.

    It's very sad. And I don't know what the answer is.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    ...
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,540
    edited May 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    She should deport herself to Rwanda for that.

    Or: see what I mean? Bloody civil servants not carrying out ministerial orders.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,187

    DavidL said:

    20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.

    I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
    Fire up ITV of a morning. Start with Suzanna and Ed Balls, then Lorraine, then Phil and Holly, finally Loose Women. 6am to 2pm. 8 hours. How much would people need to do that stretch?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,183
    edited May 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    Lock Her Up.

    Unless it was on the M6 where those imbeciles at the HA keep putting up phantom speed limits for no reason.

    In which case, Lock Them Both Up.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317
    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    Bondathon.
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
    Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.

    Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.

    The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)

    No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
    Agree 100% with all of that.

    In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,559
    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8zxRjOuak
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,559
    rcs1000 said:

    Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Mike Lindell’s $5 million contest winner takes him to federal court

    A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.

    The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”

    In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.

    Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”

    Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.

    They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.

    “There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.

    Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.

    “It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”

    Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.

    The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.

    Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”

    Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.

    Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .

    What's scary is that Lindell (and Ginni Thomas) are sincere in their views. They genuinely believe that the Democrats somehow stole the election by fraud. And once you start with that premise, then suddenly everything you do is justified.

    Trump knows he lost, but he cares only about how people see him, and he can't bear to be thought of as a loser. And therefore he pushed the story about fraud, because it made him not a loser.

    And then Fox News amplified it, because it was what its viewers wanted to hear.

    It's very sad. And I don't know what the answer is.
    IMHO you are letting the likes of Ginni Thomas and Mike Lindell off WAY WAY WAY tooooo easy.

    Why? Because while they've no doubt brainwashed themselves, they did it on premise that retaining the White House for their Fearless Leader, would pay huge political AND financial dividends for . . . wait for it . . . the likes of Ginni Thomas and Mike Lindell.

    Certainly nothing re: the careers of THESE two, gives the slightest confidence in their personal, professional and fiscal integrity. Quite the opposite.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231
    Scott_xP said:

    @KennyFarq

    Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.

    https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1659952780776288258

    Well, if they proceeded with Nicola's sub Baldrick plan it is obvious that they would lose, bigly. By "fighting" for a second referendum that they would also lose at this point they can keep the whole charade on the road for another few months, at least. That seems to be the peak of SNP ambition right now.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231

    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    As with all these things, the key questions and "who has leaked this and why have they leaked it now?"

    The answer to the first is presumably "someone who doesn't like Braverman being Home Secretary", but that doesn't narrow things down much.
    It really ought to exclude Braverman herself, if no one else, but given her incompetence even that is not assured.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,974
    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    I did one of those courses a few years ago.I found it very interesting.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,231
    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    I thought we decided that AI just made it all up anyway. More of a threat to journalism than free speech if you ask me.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,066
    edited May 2023
    Rain. In the Sahara, dude. IN THE SAHARA


  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    Forest ahead.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,559
    Spoke tooooooooo soon - just saw a fecking tv ad featuring Mike Lindell flogging his fecking pillows.

    Impending legal judgments amounting to millions against this clown, can NOT come too soon for me.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,183
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    As with all these things, the key questions and "who has leaked this and why have they leaked it now?"

    The answer to the first is presumably "someone who doesn't like Braverman being Home Secretary", but that doesn't narrow things down much.
    It really ought to exclude Braverman herself, if no one else, but given her incompetence even that is not assured.
    I always thought she disliked being Hime Secretary. Surely she wants to be Big Dog?
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,620
    Leon said:

    Rain. In the Sahara, dude. IN THE SAHARA


    It's lovely here.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,183
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Rain. In the Sahara, dude. IN THE SAHARA


    It's lovely here.
    Perhaps he doesn't like the sand of that.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,620
    edited May 2023

    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    I did one of those courses a few years ago.I found it very interesting.
    Ditto. You would have thought she would have learnt the perils of this sort of stuff from Chris Huhne. Why not just take the fine and points. Even if it means a ban just suck it up. It's not as if she can't afford other means of transport.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ...

    I thought we decided that AI just made it all up anyway. More of a threat to journalism than free speech if you ask me.
    Speaking of which, maybe there should be a Matt test: an AI system that can regularly and reliably produce cartoons that we all think are really by Matt really is AI and really is pretty bright.

  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,406

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    Bondathon.
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
    Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.

    Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.

    The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)

    No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
    Agree 100% with all of that.

    In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
    Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.

    Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.

    I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.

    For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,406
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @KennyFarq

    Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.

    https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1659952780776288258

    Well, if they proceeded with Nicola's sub Baldrick plan it is obvious that they would lose, bigly. By "fighting" for a second referendum that they would also lose at this point they can keep the whole charade on the road for another few months, at least. That seems to be the peak of SNP ambition right now.
    Someone should push Humza on whether the GE is or is not a de facto indyref. No doubt the real answer is 'it is if we win; it isn't if we lose'.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,522
    Scott_xP said:

    Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.

    The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.

    When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh

    If true, classic out of touch politician.

    The right course is to get your publicity in first, let it be known that you have been caught, like happens to us all, even archbishops, you are pleased you are allowed to take an awareness course, you hope you can learn from it and are joining in with all the other speeding punters.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    Bondathon.
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
    Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.

    Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.

    The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)

    No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
    Agree 100% with all of that.

    In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
    Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.

    Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.

    I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.

    For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
    Quantum of Solace has two problems.

    Firstly, on the initial watch at least, it's incomprehensible. Why is Bond there? Who is he chasing? When you know the plot already, it kinda makes sense. But it's really hard to understand what's going on.

    Secondly, the baddie... is... perhaps the least threatening baddie in the history of the Bond movies. My 15 year old daughter could beat the Dominic Greene character in a fight. He looks like he'd shy away from a harshly thrown word.

    Plus, that fight scene near the start where they're swinging around fighting is pretty rubbish.

    With that said, the action sequences are otherwise pretty good. I love the water angle. And the main female lead was great.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,301
    Wow. The sight of the infant Boris Johnson persuaded Polly Toynbee to have an illegal abortion.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/20/polly-toynbee-what-my-privileged-start-in-life-taught-me-about-the-british-class-system
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    DougSeal said:

    Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.

    Bondathon.
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    Nobody does it better.

    Makes me feel sad for the rest.

    You are Alan Partridge and I claim my free pint of Directors
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC8dWWImNzU&t=160s
    Stop getting Bond wrong!

    Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
    I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
    I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.

    Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
    Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.

    Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.

    The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)

    No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
    Agree 100% with all of that.

    In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
    Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.

    Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.

    I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.

    For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
    Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
This discussion has been closed.