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

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,183
    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Drugs soaked in petrol would very much set the world alight!
  • Options
    I attach my table of average weekly polls.

    Unfortuneately, PeoplePolling have not published a poll since March, but as Savanta is polling weekly I have included them in the average. Since PeoplePolling was such an outlier, resulting in the average Conservative vote being around 1% less, the previous tables I posted before Easter are not comparable.

    As can be seen, the Conservatives are back to their position at the start of March, before their short surge, whilst Labour has lost around 2% to the Lib Dems. Whether this will be maintained is unknown.


  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399
    ..
    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.

    It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399
    ..
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Drugs soaked in petrol would very much set the world alight!
    I seem to remember the villain does experience a similar fate.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,137

    ..

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.

    It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
    I think the Afghans were Mujahadeen, not Taliban, the latter only sprung up in the 90s IIUC
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399
    ..
    DougSeal said:

    ..

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.

    It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
    I think the Afghans were Mujahadeen, not Taliban, the latter only sprung up in the 90s IIUC
    I had always thought that that was a distinction without a difference, but I freely admit to my knowledge on the subject being vague.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,021
    algarkirk said:

    Guardian headline to savour. Perhaps a Russian chatbot has gone off piste:

    "Couple get payout after water buffaloes fall into Essex swimming pool"

    Are the couple water buffaloes or someone else?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399
    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,768
    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    QoS suffered from the Writers Strike.

    Some people say you should view it as a sort of Casino Royale Part 2, then it becomes clearer.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited May 2023
    Evenin' all.

    The Lib Dems can make hay with this water issue. It's exactly the kind local/national and urban/rural issue that works for them, and Labour are being too timid on it.

    I even think it must be a considerable part of their recent poll revival ; it seems also to have been central on their campaiging for the locals, for instance It also helps clearly differentiate them from a Tory outlook, once more, which is key to reviving their fortunes.

    "Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron denounced the billions going to shareholders as “absolutely scandalous” while families struggling with the cost of living would be facing increases in bills to pay for the sewage cleanup.

    “The whole thing stinks,” said Farron, Lib Dem spokesperson on the environment. “This is their mess, they should be the ones to clean it up – not hard-working families.


    “The Conservative government needs to stop sitting on their hands and force water companies to use their unearned and unjustified profits to fix the sewage crisis.”

    According to analysis by David Hall, visiting professor at the public services international research unit at Greenwich University, dividend payments by the nine English water and sewerage companies, based on 2022 prices, will cost customers £624 each by 2030.

    Hall examined annual dividends paid by companies between 2010 and 2022, which average £1.83bn a year. He said all companies have stated policies to reassure investors that they would get good dividends every year. “That implies a total of £14.67bn would be taken in dividends between 2023 and 2030.”

    Alastair Chisholm, director of policy at the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, said the high-profile announcement of massive investment in pipes, treatment works and water storage was a lot of spin. It had been forced on to water companies as a result of public outrage, which has driven the government and the regulator to take tougher action.

    “The scale of this investment was known about, water companies know they have to vastly increase investment in storm overflows and treatment works to stay legally compliant because of the regulatory response to the public outcry,” said Chisholm.

    “And it is the bill payers who are going to pay this huge amount.”

    A spokesperson for Water UK said dividends acted as a return on overall investment into things like leaks and new supplies of water. They said the dividend yield in 2021-22 was 3.8%, below Ofwat’s assumption of 4%.

    “If dividends weren’t paid then there would be no return and so no investment across all those things.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
  • Options
    He may be struggling to win Tories, but this Tory thinks he's more likely to vote for Starmer's Labour than Sunak's Conservatives.

    I don't trust Starmer, or Labour, but he at least seems to get the housing issue in this country. Sunak is merely playing up to his NIMBY supporters.

    I'll probably vote Lib Dem at the next election, but if Starmer keeps talking about things like housing and not left-wing economics, then I could be very tempted to vote Labour for the first time since 2001.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399
    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Yes, I'll agree with those criticisms. Not all of the Bond villians have been physically imposing though, but those who haven't been have usually had access to some impressive weaponry and gadgetry. Or a deadly henchman or two. He was truly loathsome though; he had that down.

    What I like about it is the interesting storyline (water), which I find cuts quite close to the bone of real geopolitics, beautiful locations, beautiful women in strong parts, and more of the Bond elements returning to the franchise.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399
    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    That's just crazy! And by now surely Bulb's prices (or whatever Government Bulb calls itself) have risen in response to the energy crisis?
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    Bulb customers should have been taken on at Ofgem Price Cap prices.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    That's just crazy! And by now surely Bulb's prices (or whatever Government Bulb calls itself) have risen in response to the energy crisis?
    Bulb customers are rolling on to standard Octopus tariffs, so the subsidy is disappearing.

    But, yes, it was unconscionable.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,501
    Off topic:"The National Review wrote about a survey from a pollster aligned with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that gets at a key question: How much better off would the GOP be with DeSantis as its nominee? We have, of course, seen DeSantis generally performing better in the general election than Donald Trump. But this poll looked at the down-ballot effects for the Republican Party. And it showed the GOP doing better under DeSantis there, as well.

    The WPA Intelligence poll tested the “generic ballot” — would you vote for a generic Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress? — with both DeSantis and Trump at the top of the ticket. While a Trump-led GOP was tied on the generic ballot (44 percent to 44 percent), a DeSantis-led one was ahead by five points (47-42)."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/20/desantis-trump-generic-ballot/

    This would not be news to rational Republican leaders, but would be to some Republican voters.

    (After the 2016 presidential election, I looked at the results in swing states and found evidence that Trump won those states because of "reverse coat tails". He was pulled over the line by more popular Republicans on the same ticket. He hasn't repaid them for that favor.)
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    Bulb customers should have been taken on at Ofgem Price Cap prices.
    Despite being thankful for RCS's explanation, I still don't see why they were taken on at all. My own supplier went bust; my energy started being provided by Shell and my bills shot up. That sucks for me, but I'll live. I don't get why Bulb is any different. I mean of all the key industries and heritage brands that the Government has happily waved cheerio to so as not to intervene in the free market, it chooses to save a huge and frankly pointless energy intermediary?
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,137

    He may be struggling to win Tories, but this Tory thinks he's more likely to vote for Starmer's Labour than Sunak's Conservatives.

    I don't trust Starmer, or Labour, but he at least seems to get the housing issue in this country. Sunak is merely playing up to his NIMBY supporters.

    I'll probably vote Lib Dem at the next election, but if Starmer keeps talking about things like housing and not left-wing economics, then I could be very tempted to vote Labour for the first time since 2001.

    We need sensible policies for a happier Britain
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    Off topic:"The National Review wrote about a survey from a pollster aligned with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that gets at a key question: How much better off would the GOP be with DeSantis as its nominee? We have, of course, seen DeSantis generally performing better in the general election than Donald Trump. But this poll looked at the down-ballot effects for the Republican Party. And it showed the GOP doing better under DeSantis there, as well.

    The WPA Intelligence poll tested the “generic ballot” — would you vote for a generic Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress? — with both DeSantis and Trump at the top of the ticket. While a Trump-led GOP was tied on the generic ballot (44 percent to 44 percent), a DeSantis-led one was ahead by five points (47-42)."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/20/desantis-trump-generic-ballot/

    This would not be news to rational Republican leaders, but would be to some Republican voters.

    (After the 2016 presidential election, I looked at the results in swing states and found evidence that Trump won those states because of "reverse coat tails". He was pulled over the line by more popular Republicans on the same ticket. He hasn't repaid them for that favor.)

    That is very plausible.

    But here's the other question Republican leaders need to ask themselves: would a defeated Trump throw his weight behind DeSantis, or would he cry that it was all rigged against him?
  • Options
    gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 476
    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    As a Bulb customer we were getting electricity and gas slightly cheaper than other suppliers because Bulb was not paying a premium for medium term supply contracts like other suppliers, but buying on cheaper spot or short term contracts.
    When the prices shot up we did not have not have to worry as Bulb could not raise prices above the cap. The government would have to subsidise us one way or another, and they chose to let Bulb linger on a for a good while and pay for its losses, rather than pay other suppliers to take us on. I think this was mainly to avoid administrative chaos rather than for any financial reason.
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited May 2023
    Northern Ireland is still counting...and counting
    But it is almost finished

    1st prefs
    Sinn Fein 30.9% (+7.7 on 2019 locals)
    DUP 23.3% (-0.8)
    Alliance 13.3% (+1.8)
    UUP 10.9 (-3.2)
    Social Democratic & Labour Party 8.7% (-3.3)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 3.9 (+1.7)
    Greens 1.7 (-0.4)
    People Before Profit 1.0 (-0.4)
    Aontú 0.9 (-0.2)

    Cllrs elected so far

    SF 137 (+34 on the seats declared so far)
    DUP 117 (=)
    Alliance 62 (+13)
    UUP 52 (-18)
    SDLP 37 (-15)
    Independents 19 (-5)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8 (+1)
    Greens 3 (-3)
    People Before Profit 1 (-2)
    Aontú 0 (-1)
    Others 1 (-3) (* the one seat is for the PUP)

    Seats still to be filled: 25
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,417

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    Bulb customers should have been taken on at Ofgem Price Cap prices.
    I think we were (declaration: I was a bulb customer, now transferred to Octopus as part of the takeover). At the moment, I think pretty much everyone is paying some variation of the Ofgem price cap.

    AIUI (and I suspect rcs knows more about this), bulb's problem was more at the buying end than the selling end. The energy firms that got into trouble hadn't done much in the way of hedging or buying in advance, so they had to buy day-by-day at the prevailing price. And for a while, that was above the price cap. Which is both a rubbish business for bulb to be in and a very hard proposition to sell to another firm.

    Nimble and efficient, sure, right up to the moment it goes wrong and you're reminded all those boring rules were put in place.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    As a Bulb customer we were getting electricity and gas slightly cheaper than other suppliers because Bulb was not paying a premium for medium term supply contracts like other suppliers, but buying on cheaper spot or short term contracts.
    When the prices shot up we did not have not have to worry as Bulb could not raise prices above the cap. The government would have to subsidise us one way or another, and they chose to let Bulb linger on a for a good while and pay for its losses, rather than pay other suppliers to take us on. I think this was mainly to avoid administrative chaos rather than for any financial reason.
    I don't see why the Government would have had to pay other suppliers to take you on. If Bulb went tits up, wouldn't its existing agreements be void? Other suppliers would have stepped in with a clean slate.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,362
    DougSeal said:

    ..

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.

    It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
    I think the Afghans were Mujahadeen, not Taliban, the latter only sprung up in the 90s IIUC
    Mujahadeen (kind of) became the Northern Alliance - the opponents of the Taliban.

    The Taliban were largely a creation of Pakistani Intelligence, when the post Soviet Afghan government was not sufficiently pro- Pakistani. They even developed a relationship with India, which really set the ISI off.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,592
    edited May 2023

    Northern Ireland is still counting...and counting
    But it is almost finished

    1st prefs
    Sinn Fein 30.9% (+7.7 on 2019 locals)
    DUP 23.3% (-0.8)
    Alliance 13.3% (+1.8)
    UUP 10.9 (-3.2)
    Social Democratic & Labour Party 8.7% (-3.3)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 3.9 (+1.7)
    Greens 1.7 (-0.4)
    People Before Profit 1.0 (-0.4)
    Aontú 0.9 (-0.2)

    Cllrs elected so far

    SF 137 (+34 on the seats declared so far)
    DUP 117 (=)
    Alliance 62 (+13)
    UUP 52 (-18)
    SDLP 37 (-15)
    Independents 19 (-5)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8 (+1)
    Greens 3 (-3)
    People Before Profit 1 (-2)
    Aontú 0 (-1)
    Others 1 (-3) (* the one seat is for the PUP)

    Seats still to be filled: 25

    NI seems to be on an inevitable trajectory towards a true 3-party system with the Shinners on 40%, and Alliance and the unionists on 30% each. Alliance are managing to do in NI what their sister party the Lib Dems never achieved in GB: a Macron-style redefinition of the internationalist centre.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,417

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    As a Bulb customer we were getting electricity and gas slightly cheaper than other suppliers because Bulb was not paying a premium for medium term supply contracts like other suppliers, but buying on cheaper spot or short term contracts.
    When the prices shot up we did not have not have to worry as Bulb could not raise prices above the cap. The government would have to subsidise us one way or another, and they chose to let Bulb linger on a for a good while and pay for its losses, rather than pay other suppliers to take us on. I think this was mainly to avoid administrative chaos rather than for any financial reason.
    I don't see why the Government would have had to pay other suppliers to take you on. If Bulb went tits up, wouldn't its existing agreements be void? Other suppliers would have stepped in with a clean slate.
    Which agreements are you thinking of?

    Son-of-bulb wouldn't be able to sell to customers much (any?) more expensively- everyone is basically hitting the Ofgem price cap.

    I doubt that Son-of-bulb wouldn't be able to buy energy for 1 million or so customers any more cheaply; I suspect their existing contracts wouldn't cover that, so they would be in the same "get what you can at today's expensive price" pickle.

    Hence the impasse. Still, the new company's app has an animated octopus that wriggles with joy when you enter a meter reading, so there's that.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,870

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.

    If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.

    Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.

    Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
    The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.

    Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
    No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.

    My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/ Try Full ahead Backwards as a good sample.
    I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party.
    Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
    Will Alba be standing candidates against the SNP? Indeed will their two MPs - originally elected as SNP - be standing for re-election?
    I would hope they stand a few
    Nigelb said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.

    If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.

    Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.

    Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
    The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.

    Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
    No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.

    My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/ Try Full ahead Backwards as a good sample.
    I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party.
    Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
    Will Alba be standing candidates against the SNP? Indeed will their two MPs - originally elected as SNP - be standing for re-election?
    I would hope they stand a few
    Nigelb said:

    Farooq said:

    malcolmg said:

    Farooq said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    These VI polls are, and always have been, very unreliable. The Conservative Party will likely end up with no less than 35% of the popular vote come the next election, because well-to-do older people will shuffle back to them, and there'll be a Hung Parliament. My guesstimate of the outcome remains Lab 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25.

    If it's 42 Lab, 35 Con, then with the SNP down to 38-40% in Scotland, we can probably expect a small Labour majority.

    Simply, Lab will pick up 20-25 in Scotland, and a little more than 100 in England and Wales.

    Now, this is far from nailed on, but one only has to look at 2005 to see how hammered the Conservatives can be, when the anti-Tory vote is well organised.
    The SNP aren't in as much trouble as is generally assumed. The Blue Woad Brigade has, after all, nowhere else to go. Labour will be doing very well to pick up a dozen seats.

    Tactical voting might move the dial a bit more, though OTOH it doesn't do to overestimate the enthusiasm for an incoming Labour administration. I might begin to believe that the majority is on if Labour offers an appealing alternative vision of its own, rather than relying on being "Not Tories" and doing as little as possible to upset the minted codger vote. There have been a few encouraging noises about confronting the Nimbies this week, but whether this translates into workable policy remains to be seen.
    No, they are in trouble and they do have somewhere else to go. I recommend reading some of the excellent threads on Wings over Scotland* and then dipping below the line there for as long as you can thole. Campbell is a good writer, witty and with a finely developed sense of the absurd but his readers are the sort of people whom we used to call cybernats and they now hate the SNP with a passion.

    My expectation is that the SNP will lose roughly half of their Westminster seats at the next election, mainly to Labour. It may well give Labour a majority.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/ Try Full ahead Backwards as a good sample.
    I don't see them going to Labour David, that is out of frying pan into the fire. More likely to not vote or go to any other independence party.
    Personally it would be good to see them hammered and for us to be shafted by Labour to waken up the idiots who still think they are anything other than London sockpuppets. Westminster is not important for Scotland, it needs people with backbone in Holyrood and Labour shafting us would stiffen some of the spineless.
    Will Alba be standing candidates against the SNP? Indeed will their two MPs - originally elected as SNP - be standing for re-election?
    I would hope they stand a few but their focus will be Holyrood. Westminster is not important other than to disrupt, current mob have gone native thanks to the money poured at them. It is in Holyrood or Scotland at large by Convention . where Independence will be decided. Westminster is a sideshow.
    I don't think Alba will exist in a meaningful way in a few years' time. They are seen as extremist weirdos in most quarters.
    Can you name some of these quarters. They are all the long term Independence supporters who have left SNP. Just spouting shite is pretty dumb even for you.
    Yeah, I'll name two: unionists and separatists.

    And sorry, the polling entirely supports this. Alba are bumping along the bottom. Two percent. Three percent. When 5% is the outlier on the upside, you know that something drastic needs to happen. And, honestly, given drastic things HAVE been happening and there's still no breakthrough suggests that I am spot on.
    Politics is a bitch, and Alba are probably doomed. I can't see any evidence to the contrary, only wishful thinking.
    Problem for Alba is that Salmond draws attention to them and gives them a voice, but he's so personally unpopular that he imposes a low ceiling on their potential vote. A conundrum.
    BBC QT was interesting last Thursday. The reaction to Alex Salmond improved markedly during the programme as people realised he talked sense and wasn’t the ogre depicted by the media. I was particularly intrigued that he was invited onto QT. Is the SNP’s control of the media weakening?
    QT welcomes all manner of strange figures, so I wouldn't draw too many inferences.
    Nothing strange about him Nigel, he is still one of the best politicians in UK and it was a Scottish audience hearing reality rather than mince. Even the unionists in audience got it.
    I didn't say there was, malc.
    Just that a QT appearance isn't any great validation, given some of the utter dross that gets on the panel from time to time.

    I can't comment on Salmond's performance as I didn't see it.
    @nigelb, no issue Nigel, he was head and shoulders above the others , I know QT is crap and usually biased to boot. He had a good performance and never once slagged off anybody.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,021
    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.

    Sun, fresh air and exercise.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317

    ..

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.

    It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
    Yes, it's the backdrop of the Soviet-Afghanistan War that makes the finale of The Living Daylights so interesting, and the role played by the mujahideen. The cinematography and score is amazing.

    Whittaker is essentially an also-ran, so it doesn't really bother me.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317

    Northern Ireland is still counting...and counting
    But it is almost finished

    1st prefs
    Sinn Fein 30.9% (+7.7 on 2019 locals)
    DUP 23.3% (-0.8)
    Alliance 13.3% (+1.8)
    UUP 10.9 (-3.2)
    Social Democratic & Labour Party 8.7% (-3.3)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 3.9 (+1.7)
    Greens 1.7 (-0.4)
    People Before Profit 1.0 (-0.4)
    Aontú 0.9 (-0.2)

    Cllrs elected so far

    SF 137 (+34 on the seats declared so far)
    DUP 117 (=)
    Alliance 62 (+13)
    UUP 52 (-18)
    SDLP 37 (-15)
    Independents 19 (-5)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8 (+1)
    Greens 3 (-3)
    People Before Profit 1 (-2)
    Aontú 0 (-1)
    Others 1 (-3) (* the one seat is for the PUP)

    Seats still to be filled: 25

    If nothing else STV is relentlessly tedious.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,684
    TimS said:

    Northern Ireland is still counting...and counting
    But it is almost finished

    1st prefs
    Sinn Fein 30.9% (+7.7 on 2019 locals)
    DUP 23.3% (-0.8)
    Alliance 13.3% (+1.8)
    UUP 10.9 (-3.2)
    Social Democratic & Labour Party 8.7% (-3.3)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 3.9 (+1.7)
    Greens 1.7 (-0.4)
    People Before Profit 1.0 (-0.4)
    Aontú 0.9 (-0.2)

    Cllrs elected so far

    SF 137 (+34 on the seats declared so far)
    DUP 117 (=)
    Alliance 62 (+13)
    UUP 52 (-18)
    SDLP 37 (-15)
    Independents 19 (-5)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8 (+1)
    Greens 3 (-3)
    People Before Profit 1 (-2)
    Aontú 0 (-1)
    Others 1 (-3) (* the one seat is for the PUP)

    Seats still to be filled: 25

    NI seems to be on an inevitable trajectory towards a true 3-party system with the Shinners on 40%, and Alliance and the unionists on 30% each. Alliance are managing to do in NI what their sister party the Lib Dems never achieved in GB: a Macron-style redefinition of the internationalist centre.
    They have the advantage of a decent voting system, STV in multi-member constituencies.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,021
    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?
    She was upset he didn’t confide in her that his brother was a paedo
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,592

    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.

    Sun, fresh air and exercise.
    I second that. Walking. As far as possible - hours on end of just walking in one direction. It’s almost impossible to be stressed when you’re walking (unless you’re lost on a mountain and the weather is closing in, obviously).
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,399

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    As a Bulb customer we were getting electricity and gas slightly cheaper than other suppliers because Bulb was not paying a premium for medium term supply contracts like other suppliers, but buying on cheaper spot or short term contracts.
    When the prices shot up we did not have not have to worry as Bulb could not raise prices above the cap. The government would have to subsidise us one way or another, and they chose to let Bulb linger on a for a good while and pay for its losses, rather than pay other suppliers to take us on. I think this was mainly to avoid administrative chaos rather than for any financial reason.
    I don't see why the Government would have had to pay other suppliers to take you on. If Bulb went tits up, wouldn't its existing agreements be void? Other suppliers would have stepped in with a clean slate.
    Which agreements are you thinking of?

    Son-of-bulb wouldn't be able to sell to customers much (any?) more expensively- everyone is basically hitting the Ofgem price cap.

    I doubt that Son-of-bulb wouldn't be able to buy energy for 1 million or so customers any more cheaply; I suspect their existing contracts wouldn't cover that, so they would be in the same "get what you can at today's expensive price" pickle.

    Hence the impasse. Still, the new company's app has an animated octopus that wriggles with joy when you enter a meter reading, so there's that.
    Yes, I do see that.

    For me, again it drives home the utter lunacy of the Government's policy to sit on its hands and do nothing whatsoever to increase supply. Nothing to speed existing power station projects through planning, nothing to increase North sea oil and gas, fracking biting the dust again, nothing on the small nuclear reactors, no revisiting of tidal lagoons. Just more useless subsidised wind.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,870

    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.

    Sun, fresh air and exercise.
    Brisk walk and a nice cold beer at the end of it , or a spot of gardening.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561

    Fishing said:

    If one is rational, there are some things that are better privatised and other things not better privatised.

    Railways and water strike me as too things that should never have been privatised - and the end results have been at best pointless, at worst catastrophic for the environment and the economy.

    One should be able to make these points without being called a communist. Nationalisation of these things is one of the least ideological things we could do, it clearly makes sense.

    Railways could (and should) be privatised but not in the way it was done. The biggest problem with railways is that they were subject to the separation of infrastructure and service. This meant each could blame the other for failings and ultimately no one is held responsible.

    Also worth noting that the biggest source of issues on the railways is still Network Rail - which is in public not private hands.

    As always though, the issue is not privatisation per se but the regulation that is attached to it. You can run pulic services very well in the private sector if you have strict regulation, high minimum standards for investment and tight controls on maximum allowable profit. It happens all across Europe in other sectors including the holy cow of health provision and it could work here if we had politicians who understood and had the desire to make private companies work for the public good rather than just laisse faire.
    I certainly agree we have to ditch this ultra-laissez faire approach, even if all these renationalisations can't be done.

    This includes nor only the idiotic "self-regulation" that you've mentioned, but also the ludicrous refusal to contemplate any form of long-term industrial policy, to the extent that we're now out on our own among our neighbours, in crucial national-strategic issues like not even being in control of our own nuclear power.
    The Office for Nuclear Regulation, Ofgem and the Civil Nuclear Police would be surprised to hear that we're not in control of our own nuclear power.

    Ownership and control are different in regulated sectors like water or energy. One means you take the profits from your invested capital, the other means you have people with guns who have the physical power over the infrastructure.
    But no other European countries have followed our model on this that I know of, and not even the Americans.

    It's simply not in anyone's interests to have so many national-strategic assets owned abroad.
    It doesn't matter whether they are foreign-owned or not as long as the very heavy regulation they face is UK-based.

    We benefit because foreign investment brings foreign expertise and management, which is often better than our own in such sectors, and foreign capital, which is often cheaper than its UK equivalent.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,658

    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?
    She was upset he didn’t confide in her that his brother was a paedo
    Ffs!
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,021
    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    May be that’s because you keep telling everyone?

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    rcs1000 said:

    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.
    May be that’s because you keep telling everyone?

    Yes... but they know these things within five minutes of arrival.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Drugs soaked in petrol would very much set the world alight!
    I apologise now, but the headline in one of the threads tomorrow is going to trigger you very badly.
  • Options
    SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 597
    Re Bond: My theory is the better the pre credits sequence, the worse the actual film as that is where the budget goes. Quantum of Nonsense had a great opening sequence but it was rubbish after that.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    As a Bulb customer we were getting electricity and gas slightly cheaper than other suppliers because Bulb was not paying a premium for medium term supply contracts like other suppliers, but buying on cheaper spot or short term contracts.
    When the prices shot up we did not have not have to worry as Bulb could not raise prices above the cap. The government would have to subsidise us one way or another, and they chose to let Bulb linger on a for a good while and pay for its losses, rather than pay other suppliers to take us on. I think this was mainly to avoid administrative chaos rather than for any financial reason.
    I don't see why the Government would have had to pay other suppliers to take you on. If Bulb went tits up, wouldn't its existing agreements be void? Other suppliers would have stepped in with a clean slate.
    Here's the thing.

    Other suppliers (retailers) had some longer-term supply contracts from generators*. This meant their blended cost of electricity per customer was (say) 100, even though spot prices were 120. If they took on 1.5 million Bulb customers, then their blended cost of electricity would go up to 108 or 109.

    The other suppliers were profitable at the price caps (albeit barely) because they had forward bought some of their electricity.

    One couldn't** profitably supply electricity at the caps if you were buying your electricity at spot.


    * Although nowhere near enough. Most suppliers had hedged 15-25% of forward electricity supply.

    ** One can now, of course.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,994
    The "Russian" trolls are almost certainly African students employed for the purpose. Hence why they start on a Saturday when their academic week is over and why they do not write in English like a Russophone - which is very easy to spot if you know what to look for.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    We really need to talk about Arsenal's choke.

    An omen for Starmer?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    Happy for the Forest fans.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,021
    malcolmg 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.

    Sun, fresh air and exercise.
    Brisk walk and a nice cold beer at the end of it , or a spot of gardening.
    Yep. Walking is my exercise of choice. Preferably hill walking but I have to walk the streets more than I would like
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,021

    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?
    She was upset he didn’t confide in her that his brother was a paedo
    Ffs!
    Apparently it called their friendship into question because he didn’t trust her
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,150

    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.

    Sun, fresh air and exercise.
    Not had that kind of anxiety myself, but I have observed it closely in others. One thing that might help for immediate crises is to concentrate on breathing and breathe slowly - inhale normally then exhale very slowly.

  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,139

    Happy for the Forest fans.

    Ta. Me and the daughter cheered quite loudly.
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 640
    CatMan said:

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    QoS suffered from the Writers Strike.

    Some people say you should view it as a sort of Casino Royale Part 2, then it becomes clearer.
    Yes, on QoS, the writers strike was ongoing and.rhe rules said that only.the director and star could contribute new 'writing'. As they were committed to a release date, they had to go on
    Craig has said that he and the director discovered them that they were not writers!
    The fight at the start qas inspired by a visit Craig has made to that location. They filmed it with no idea who it would go in the story, just that it would look good.
  • Options
    SteveSSteveS Posts: 48

    rcs1000 said:

    According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.

    If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?

    No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)

    The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.

    * Bulb customers
    As a Bulb customer we were getting electricity and gas slightly cheaper than other suppliers because Bulb was not paying a premium for medium term supply contracts like other suppliers, but buying on cheaper spot or short term contracts.
    When the prices shot up we did not have not have to worry as Bulb could not raise prices above the cap. The government would have to subsidise us one way or another, and they chose to let Bulb linger on a for a good while and pay for its losses, rather than pay other suppliers to take us on. I think this was mainly to avoid administrative chaos rather than for any financial reason.
    I don't see why the Government would have had to pay other suppliers to take you on. If Bulb went tits up, wouldn't its existing agreements be void? Other suppliers would have stepped in with a clean slate.
    Which agreements are you thinking of?

    Son-of-bulb wouldn't be able to sell to customers much (any?) more expensively- everyone is basically hitting the Ofgem price cap.

    I doubt that Son-of-bulb wouldn't be able to buy energy for 1 million or so customers any more cheaply; I suspect their existing contracts wouldn't cover that, so they would be in the same "get what you can at today's expensive price" pickle.

    Hence the impasse. Still, the new company's app has an animated octopus that wriggles with joy when you enter a meter reading, so there's that.
    Indeed, there used to be a possible business model along the following lines:

    Spot price is 100. Aggressive marketing and sell fixed price deal to the punters at 95 for three years. Set the direct debit at a level so that you’re in credit for a bit, and so you can cover the spread for a while.

    If spot drops to 90, then pay yourself a large salary and trebles all round. If spot rises to 110 then pay yourself a large salary, trebles all round, then wind up the company when it becomes insolvent and your customers are transferred to someone else.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,951
    A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on here simply saying: "Bakhmut has fallen" (or somesuch)

    I was wrong then, but it now seems it finally has. The fact it has taken Russia so long to take the town might be seen as a sign that, despite all the flag-waving from Russians and pro-Russian shills, the war is not going well for Russia.

    Instead of 'seven days to the Rhine', Russia is down to 'seven months for one town' ...
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    @PaulBrandITV
    The @LibDems call for investigation.

    “Braverman should be urgently investigated by the Ethics Adviser and add her name to the nearly endless list of Ministers who’ve undergone the same. Time and again we see a conveyor belt of Tory politicians run roughshod over the rules”.

    @PaulBrandITV
    Labour call for same.

    “As Home Sec Braverman is responsible for upholding the law, yet this report suggests she has tried to abuse her position to get round normal penalties…We’ve had 13 years of Tories trying to dodge rules for themselves and their mates. Enough is enough.”

    @euanmccolm
    that suella braverman story is so damaging, sunak’ll have to get rid of her until wednesday.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    @YvetteCooperMP
    Shocking. Suella Braverman’s role is upholding law but this suggests she tried to abuse her position to get round it

    Why do Tories think its one rule for them & another for everyone else?

    Sunak was too weak to act last time she broke Ministerial Code. Is he still too weak now?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,829
    TimS said:

    Northern Ireland is still counting...and counting
    But it is almost finished

    1st prefs
    Sinn Fein 30.9% (+7.7 on 2019 locals)
    DUP 23.3% (-0.8)
    Alliance 13.3% (+1.8)
    UUP 10.9 (-3.2)
    Social Democratic & Labour Party 8.7% (-3.3)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 3.9 (+1.7)
    Greens 1.7 (-0.4)
    People Before Profit 1.0 (-0.4)
    Aontú 0.9 (-0.2)

    Cllrs elected so far

    SF 137 (+34 on the seats declared so far)
    DUP 117 (=)
    Alliance 62 (+13)
    UUP 52 (-18)
    SDLP 37 (-15)
    Independents 19 (-5)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8 (+1)
    Greens 3 (-3)
    People Before Profit 1 (-2)
    Aontú 0 (-1)
    Others 1 (-3) (* the one seat is for the PUP)

    Seats still to be filled: 25

    NI seems to be on an inevitable trajectory towards a true 3-party system with the Shinners on 40%, and Alliance and the unionists on 30% each. Alliance are managing to do in NI what their sister party the Lib Dems never achieved in GB: a Macron-style redefinition of the internationalist centre.
    It’s a big indictment of Unionist political leadership that their vote share falls so far below the share of those who tell pollsters they favour remaining in the UK. (Political polling in NI is now pretty accurate). When you endlessly pick fights you can’t win, and tell your supporters they’ve been betrayed, is it any wonder that many conclude that voting is a waste of time?
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,139

    A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on here simply saying: "Bakhmut has fallen" (or somesuch)

    I was wrong then, but it now seems it finally has. The fact it has taken Russia so long to take the town might be seen as a sign that, despite all the flag-waving from Russians and pro-Russian shills, the war is not going well for Russia.

    Instead of 'seven days to the Rhine', Russia is down to 'seven months for one town' ...

    Let's see what "fallen" means.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,994
    Scott_xP said:


    @euanmccolm
    that suella braverman story is so damaging, sunak’ll have to get rid of her until wednesday.

    The chase is on! Jenrick and Shappsie on Sky News ASAP.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317
    SandraMc said:

    Re Bond: My theory is the better the pre credits sequence, the worse the actual film as that is where the budget goes. Quantum of Nonsense had a great opening sequence but it was rubbish after that.

    Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and The Living Daylights all had great pre credits sequence. By contrast, that for Licence to Kill was rather underwhelming, and the movie was actually better.

    In the modern era, I think it's the ego (or not) of the director.

    It's no coincidence that both Goldeneye and Casino Royale were made by Martin Campbell (who was focussed solely on the film) as were the likes of John Glen, Peter Hunt, and Terence Young before him.

    Others like Sam Mendes, Cary Fukunaga, Lee Tamahori, Danny Boyle etc. were more interested in stamping their own brand on it, quite frankly.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317
    *Edit: I know Danny Boyle didn't actually make one in the end but he left before he could for that very reason.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317
    Sean_F said:

    TimS said:

    Northern Ireland is still counting...and counting
    But it is almost finished

    1st prefs
    Sinn Fein 30.9% (+7.7 on 2019 locals)
    DUP 23.3% (-0.8)
    Alliance 13.3% (+1.8)
    UUP 10.9 (-3.2)
    Social Democratic & Labour Party 8.7% (-3.3)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 3.9 (+1.7)
    Greens 1.7 (-0.4)
    People Before Profit 1.0 (-0.4)
    Aontú 0.9 (-0.2)

    Cllrs elected so far

    SF 137 (+34 on the seats declared so far)
    DUP 117 (=)
    Alliance 62 (+13)
    UUP 52 (-18)
    SDLP 37 (-15)
    Independents 19 (-5)
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8 (+1)
    Greens 3 (-3)
    People Before Profit 1 (-2)
    Aontú 0 (-1)
    Others 1 (-3) (* the one seat is for the PUP)

    Seats still to be filled: 25

    NI seems to be on an inevitable trajectory towards a true 3-party system with the Shinners on 40%, and Alliance and the unionists on 30% each. Alliance are managing to do in NI what their sister party the Lib Dems never achieved in GB: a Macron-style redefinition of the internationalist centre.
    It’s a big indictment of Unionist political leadership that their vote share falls so far below the share of those who tell pollsters they favour remaining in the UK. (Political polling in NI is now pretty accurate). When you endlessly pick fights you can’t win, and tell your supporters they’ve been betrayed, is it any wonder that many conclude that voting is a waste of time?
    And, many in the Conservative Party seem to take their cue from them.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,183

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 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.

    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.
    Drugs soaked in petrol would very much set the world alight!
    I apologise now, but the headline in one of the threads tomorrow is going to trigger you very badly.
    If you have written a post in admiration of Spielman, Cummings, Gibb or Freedman I'm coming up to Manchester to force feed you a pineapple pizza while wearing a Max Verstappen face mask.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on here simply saying: "Bakhmut has fallen" (or somesuch)

    I was wrong then, but it now seems it finally has. The fact it has taken Russia so long to take the town might be seen as a sign that, despite all the flag-waving from Russians and pro-Russian shills, the war is not going well for Russia.

    Instead of 'seven days to the Rhine', Russia is down to 'seven months for one town' ...

    It's an interesting battle: the Ukrainians seem to have been advancing around the town, while the Russians have successfully captured the centre.

    It remains to be seen which strategy is the more successful one.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    It is time to call a General Election.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,417

    It is time to call a General Election.

    Wine o'clock on a sunny May evening?

    Seems a little unsporting.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,887
    Rishi needs to wait until Thursday so he can sack Cruella for the immigration numbers (and the speeding)
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,620
    rcs1000 said:

    A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on here simply saying: "Bakhmut has fallen" (or somesuch)

    I was wrong then, but it now seems it finally has. The fact it has taken Russia so long to take the town might be seen as a sign that, despite all the flag-waving from Russians and pro-Russian shills, the war is not going well for Russia.

    Instead of 'seven days to the Rhine', Russia is down to 'seven months for one town' ...

    It's an interesting battle: the Ukrainians seem to have been advancing around the town, while the Russians have successfully captured the centre.

    It remains to be seen which strategy is the more successful one.
    I know bugger all about this stuff, but isn't a good idea not to get yourself surrounded and cut off.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,955

    SandraMc said:

    Re Bond: My theory is the better the pre credits sequence, the worse the actual film as that is where the budget goes. Quantum of Nonsense had a great opening sequence but it was rubbish after that.

    Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and The Living Daylights all had great pre credits sequence. By contrast, that for Licence to Kill was rather underwhelming, and the movie was actually better.

    In the modern era, I think it's the ego (or not) of the director.

    It's no coincidence that both Goldeneye and Casino Royale were made by Martin Campbell (who was focussed solely on the film) as were the likes of John Glen, Peter Hunt, and Terence Young before him.

    Others like Sam Mendes, Cary Fukunaga, Lee Tamahori, Danny Boyle etc. were more interested in stamping their own brand on it, quite frankly.
    The pretitle in Casino Royale was "ok". It was the black and white "considerably..." section.

    The bit immediately after the title credits, in Madagascar, was absolutely superb, and ranks amongst the finest action sequences in any movie.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,592
    Scott_xP said:

    Rishi needs to wait until Thursday so he can sack Cruella for the immigration numbers (and the speeding)

    There’s definitely a sacking coming. A big, high profile sacking of Braverman accompanied with a denunciation of her Nat-C musings would do a great deal to shore up the blue wall.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited May 2023
    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Rishi needs to wait until Thursday so he can sack Cruella for the immigration numbers (and the speeding)

    There’s definitely a sacking coming. A big, high profile sacking of Braverman accompanied with a denunciation of her Nat-C musings would do a great deal to shore up the blue wall.
    Plus they need to do something much more and symbolic, about the growing public concern on the Water issue.

    The Lib Dems, on their own steam, will be adding about another 5% on it alone, at this rate.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,317
    rcs1000 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re Bond: My theory is the better the pre credits sequence, the worse the actual film as that is where the budget goes. Quantum of Nonsense had a great opening sequence but it was rubbish after that.

    Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and The Living Daylights all had great pre credits sequence. By contrast, that for Licence to Kill was rather underwhelming, and the movie was actually better.

    In the modern era, I think it's the ego (or not) of the director.

    It's no coincidence that both Goldeneye and Casino Royale were made by Martin Campbell (who was focussed solely on the film) as were the likes of John Glen, Peter Hunt, and Terence Young before him.

    Others like Sam Mendes, Cary Fukunaga, Lee Tamahori, Danny Boyle etc. were more interested in stamping their own brand on it, quite frankly.
    The pretitle in Casino Royale was "ok". It was the black and white "considerably..." section.

    The bit immediately after the title credits, in Madagascar, was absolutely superb, and ranks amongst the finest action sequences in any movie.
    The way that Campbell shot the poker scenes is also brilliant. I'd read the book more than once before I saw the film, and kept thinking how faithful it would be.

    I was delighted as scene after scene in the film, essentially, kept faithful to Fleming's original.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,994
    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Rishi needs to wait until Thursday so he can sack Cruella for the immigration numbers (and the speeding)

    There’s definitely a sacking coming. A big, high profile sacking of Braverman accompanied with a denunciation of her Nat-C musings would do a great deal to shore up the blue wall.
    The mad twat will be constantly brewing up chaos from the backbenches if Sunak puts a bullet in her.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    On Topic.

    “The detail is very similar to other pollsters” - that is the key fact which underpins your header Mike. I contest it - Other pollsters have it at 14-16, which may seem small but according to research of some PBers is mightier than Blair managed in 1997. If all the other pollsters also said 11% I would agree with you, but they don’t, and when you also add huge lead reported by some pollsters in Red wall and a lead in Blue wall, this additional data beyond the Yougov weakens the headline you are making.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,951
    rcs1000 said:

    SandraMc said:

    Re Bond: My theory is the better the pre credits sequence, the worse the actual film as that is where the budget goes. Quantum of Nonsense had a great opening sequence but it was rubbish after that.

    Goldeneye, Casino Royale, and The Living Daylights all had great pre credits sequence. By contrast, that for Licence to Kill was rather underwhelming, and the movie was actually better.

    In the modern era, I think it's the ego (or not) of the director.

    It's no coincidence that both Goldeneye and Casino Royale were made by Martin Campbell (who was focussed solely on the film) as were the likes of John Glen, Peter Hunt, and Terence Young before him.

    Others like Sam Mendes, Cary Fukunaga, Lee Tamahori, Danny Boyle etc. were more interested in stamping their own brand on it, quite frankly.
    The pretitle in Casino Royale was "ok". It was the black and white "considerably..." section.

    The bit immediately after the title credits, in Madagascar, was absolutely superb, and ranks amongst the finest action sequences in any movie.
    "ranks amongst the finest action sequences in any movie."

    Where would you put the church scene from Kingsman in that ranking? It's ultra-violent, but the way they shot it, and the switching from the violence to the reaction of the people watching it in real time, was superb.

    Also, John Wick has some brilliant (and bloody) action scenes.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Martin Campbell saved James Bond twice.

    And both times he was replaced and the follow up was shit.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,658
    Dura_Ace said:

    TimS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Rishi needs to wait until Thursday so he can sack Cruella for the immigration numbers (and the speeding)

    There’s definitely a sacking coming. A big, high profile sacking of Braverman accompanied with a denunciation of her Nat-C musings would do a great deal to shore up the blue wall.
    The mad twat will be constantly brewing up chaos from the backbenches if Sunak puts a bullet in her.
    The fate of a Tory PM was ever thus: to have a mad twat or two constantly brewing up chaos from the backbenches.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on here simply saying: "Bakhmut has fallen" (or somesuch)

    I was wrong then, but it now seems it finally has. The fact it has taken Russia so long to take the town might be seen as a sign that, despite all the flag-waving from Russians and pro-Russian shills, the war is not going well for Russia.

    Instead of 'seven days to the Rhine', Russia is down to 'seven months for one town' ...

    It's an interesting battle: the Ukrainians seem to have been advancing around the town, while the Russians have successfully captured the centre.

    It remains to be seen which strategy is the more successful one.
    I know bugger all about this stuff, but isn't a good idea not to get yourself surrounded and cut off.
    Charles-Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, President Emperor of the French says “hi”
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Question of Sport was so incoherent that I don't think the people in the film actually knew what was going on.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,362
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A couple of months ago, I wrote a post on here simply saying: "Bakhmut has fallen" (or somesuch)

    I was wrong then, but it now seems it finally has. The fact it has taken Russia so long to take the town might be seen as a sign that, despite all the flag-waving from Russians and pro-Russian shills, the war is not going well for Russia.

    Instead of 'seven days to the Rhine', Russia is down to 'seven months for one town' ...

    It's an interesting battle: the Ukrainians seem to have been advancing around the town, while the Russians have successfully captured the centre.

    It remains to be seen which strategy is the more successful one.
    I know bugger all about this stuff, but isn't a good idea not to get yourself surrounded and cut off.
    The history of “salients” is worth looking up.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,923
    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 find an hour or so in a park (or any green space) with some mildly engaging (but not _too_ engaging) podcasts help a lot. Ideally I'd head to somewhere with a sea view (or lake/loch view) but that's not quite 'on demand' where I live. But basically 'chit chat and greenery'. And ducks. Ducks are ace.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,001
    mwadams said:

    Happy for the Forest fans.

    Ta. Me and the daughter cheered quite loudly.
    Good day chez nous: City, Forest and Stockport County all supported in our gaff.

    Off to Wembley for the playoff final next Sunday (as long as I can get tickets - County allocated 39,000 so should be ok).
  • Options
    AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Updated on North Ireland

    SF 141 seats
    DUP 120
    Alliance 65
    UUP 53
    SDLP 39
    Independents 19
    Traditional Unionist Voice 8
    Greens 3
    People Before Profit 1
    Progressive Unionist Party 1

    Seats left: 12 (19 in Belfast and 3 in Causeway Coast)

    Couseway Coast
    1 seat between DUP and TUV
    2 seats to be filled with DUP, TUV, FS, Alliance and SDLP left in the race

    Belfast
    In Botanic...3 seats to be filled with 2 SF, 2 Alliance and 1 Green left
    In Collin...1 seat to be filled with People Before Profit, SDLP, Aontú and Alliance left
    In Odlpark....3 seats to be filled with 2 SF and 2 DUP left
    In Ormiston...2 seats left with 2 UUP and 1 Green in the race
This discussion has been closed.