David Herdson The fact that the CLP's voted marginally for Corbyn is a reflection only of the poor state of the present leadership contest and says nothing at all about what the 2020 intake will be.
If Chuka had stayed the course he would be sailing through this contest- and what would that say? Ed Jarvis, the same possibly because people like his back story.
Liz Kendell is getting so little traction because she is bonkers. And the membership were fed up of robotic types like Burnham and Cooper- but in all likelihood are probably going to pick one of them on second preferences.
Corbyn is a breath of fresh air that will likely fizzle out. The Tory party leadership election will also benefit from a Corbynesque injection of enthusiasm.
Labour's candidates and membership lean to the left at present following a second defeat, much as the Tories did after 2001. Corbyn will certainly come top on first preferences, if he does lose it will be narrowly on preferences to Burnham or Cooper.
One thing Labour do have going for them is Cameron will not be there in 2020, if he was, as Blair was in 2005 for the Tories, I think it would be a matter of limiting the damage. Yet without him at the helm they may still have a chance
With Labour, they are not just choosing Corbyn over a mild Blairite in Kendall, but over the party's Brownite middle in Burnham and Cooper. And doing so enthusiastically.
Not necessarily, IDS would probably have beaten Portillo too (and Portillo, while a social liberal, was still a Thatcherite on economics and a eurosceptic) and while Davis may have beaten IDS he was a fellow rightwinger anyway.
Portillo would have beaten IDS, and both him and Davis were (and still are!) In the sensible mainstream. Portillo's liberal social views and Davis' liberal civil rights views show they are thoughtful men and not ideologues.
This is interesting. In 2001, apparently Tory MPs voted tactically to prevent Portillo being on the ballot paper put to party members. It was nearly a Clarke vs Portillo contest, with IDS eliminated. "By a single vote Portillo was eliminated from the contest. It later transpired that he had been the victim of tactical voting.[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2001
IDS supporters voted tactically for Clarke not the other way round. It was almost an almighty f**k up, and came within a whisker of relegating IDS from the final 2.
For what it's worth, my take on that alternate history is here:
"You really believe that people will be listening to a 70's Marxist rust bucket let alone taking them seriously ?"
Of course not but they will listen to a British leader of the opposition or British Prime minister
No they won't. Given whom he supports there must be a question about his security status. The terror organisations he associates with will be emboldened and other serious leaders will just write him off. Britain will be diminished not listened to.
My point was that some degrees are worthwhile in a wider society, yet not paid well - so could be candidates for scholarships/reasonable to cancel fees.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
True, but I know some archaelogists and they do important work even on relatively low pay (sometimes including surveys for commercial organisations). Indeed, iron age remains were recently found near where I am presently based, previously undiscovered
This is an exact repeat of the Blair era. Cameron and Osborne, Osborne in particular, is relentlessly focussed on the centre ground in the same way that Blair was. The need to differentiate drives the opposing party to the extremes which alienates their natural supporters but make their more extreme supporters louder and more dominant in their organisation.
One of the consistent delusions of politics is that it is a mistake to look like a pale version of your opponent and that what is required is more of the policies and stance that the electorate rejected the last time. 2001 and 2005 were both good examples and now we have had 2010 and 2015. It seems that Labour have yet to learn that lesson. They have not yet found their David Cameron (or Blair), someone who can drag their party back to relevance ignoring the siren calls of the one more heave brigade.
The second thing required is the natural weakening over time of the dominant party. Cameron's departure (surely still one of the most underrated politicians since the war) is such an opportunity as is the Tories persistent desire to risk ruin by EU obsessions. But Labour need a centrist, relevant, electable voice to take advantage of these opportunities. Corbyn is clearly not that and nor, in my opinion, is Burnham. This election has clearly come much too soon for Kendall. Cooper has a lot of growing to do in terms of speaking, presence and wit but she is their only chance.
Cooper often polls the worst of the lot. Mori actually had Burnham with higher ratings than Osborne. 2010 was really the equivalent of 1997 for Labour, 2015 the equivalent of 2001, the next election would be the equivalent of 2005, though as you say Labour would be helped by the absence of Cameron when the Tories had to face Blair
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
Norman Tebbitt said much the same thing in the Telegraph.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation: Matthew Parris and Norman Tebbitt could both paedophiles covering up for one of their own.
I have read rumours about a few politicians but never those 2, and Tebbit was careful to stress he and Heath disliked each other but as he was now dead he could no longer sue and defend himself
Mr. Doethur, oh aye, they properly buggered up Saruman, in both the cinematic and extended version (got the DVD box set a few years ago).
It's bizarre, given the actual ending in the book makes more sense *and* provides a better ending than the ridiculously prolonged ending of Return of the King.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
It is a global phenomonon, most companies now demand a degree in business studies, marketing etc for even the most basic middle management role and you need a degree even to be a nurse nowadays
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
Unless Corbyn and Macintosh lead them, SLab are unlikely to make significant gains in Scotland (though if the SNP press indyref too they may benefit from Tory and LD tactical voting). In Wales though Labour will win, they were still comfortably ahead of the Tories and Plaid in 2015, even with Tory gains
The new SLAB leader is due to be announced on 20th August - I don't think there are any betting markets still open, but the last odds I came across were Kezia 1/50 and Ken 12/1. I think the result will be closer than the odds suggest, there are around 15,000 SLAB members plus 6,000 new affiliates and supporters. I've got £50 on Ken to keep me interested.
Corbyn is the silly answer to the silly question; Who would you most like to be leader of the Labour party Kendall Burnham Cooper or Corbyn?
I too would go for Corbyn. The rest willl go down to inglorious defeat because they aren't up to it.
Corbyn will too but at least he has a few unfashionable ideas that deserve exploring. For example his unwillingness to countenance Israels behaviour in the simpering way most other politicians do.
A strong and powerful voice from within the UK could actually make a difference. The Middle East is the most dangerous part of the world and has at its heart one of the great unresolved injustices. Someone in the West needs to speak up for the Palestinian cause
That alone makes the £3 ticket price good value
????????????
Most deaths in the Middle East are Arabs killing other Arabs.
Quite. Israel is the only civilised, prosperous liberal democracy in the entire region.
Not really a surprise, although the actual link (the egregious Scyld Berry apart) suggests he will retire after the Oval.
The one small problem - who do you replace him with as a batsman? Call up Mark Cosgrove, who surely has to be, regardless of his girth, the replacement for Rogers at the top of the order? Or Michael Klinger, if he's fit?
Not really a surprise, although the actual link (the egregious Scyld Berry apart) suggests he will retire after the Oval.
The one small problem - who do you replace him with as a batsman? Call up Mark Cosgrove, who surely has to be, regardless of his girth, the replacement for Rogers at the top of the order? Or Michael Klinger, if he's fit?
Why drop him for the last test?
It's a dead rubber.
Consider it an exhibition for a long-standing captain.
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
It's not about the Labour base. It's about the Parliamentary party having a reasonable excuse to ditch him. They will obviously have the power to do so from day 1, but they need him to fail first. Unfortunately for them, Labour will probably do quite well in the locals (unless the party has already fallen apart). Local govt is about to enter a shitstorm.
Having worked in further, higher and adult education, I'm torn on educational timing.
Frankly a lot of teens are too young for it and make poor decisions about what they will study that turn out to have very little relevance for their future. They rarely understand the jobs market or the importance of up-skilling: in fact vocational students often have a much clearer skills-based approach to their education and career than A-level students do.
Adult education students almost invariably have a better focus, vision and motivation than the kids and I think a lot of people would make better educational decisions if they waited til their late 20s. They're not going to college or uni for the life experience and to party, they're doing it to crack on with their path in life. But the flip side of that is that the investment in education pays off over time, for which reason it's better for people to study as early as possible. I had very motivated adult education students in their 40s who wanted to get into nursing or midwifery, for instance, but by the time they finished university and were out working, they might only have 15 years or so left before they retire: neither they nor the government was getting full value from that investment. Also adult ed is hard for people with young children: their motivation may be higher, but they also face severe constraints on their time and energy.
Having said that, there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
I felt the Lord of the Rings movies were a bit too cheesy in their special effects and comic relief, but it is absurd to think there should not be changes from a book when it is adapted to the screen. Especially when a lot of characters are one dimensional pure heroes in the book. Authors like GRR Martin who have also done screen writing are very comfortable with these changes. Tolkien seemed like a bit of a stick in the mud about it, as do many of his fans. That's especially odd when he wanted the tale to become a British myth. Myths of course always change dramatically from telling to telling depending on the teller.
Norman Tebbitt said much the same thing in the Telegraph.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation: Matthew Parris and Norman Tebbitt could both paedophiles covering up for one of their own.
I have read rumours about a few politicians but never those 2, and Tebbit was careful to stress he and Heath disliked each other but as he was now dead he could no longer sue and defend himself
I don't like Tebbitt much. But I can fully believe, from what I know of his career, that he would speak up for an enemy if he believed said enemy to be the victim of a smear campaign without the right of reply.
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
I felt the Lord of the Rings movies were a bit too cheesy in their special effects and comic relief, but it is absurd to think there should not be changes from a book when it is adapted to the screen. Especially when a lot of characters are one dimensional pure heroes in the book. Authors like GRR Martin who have also done screen writing are very comfortable with these changes. Tolkien seemed like a bit of a stick in the mud about it, as do many of his fans. That's especially odd when he wanted the tale to become a British myth. Myths of course always change dramatically from telling to telling depending on the teller.
Let's not forget the paltry representation of any women in the books, plus some pretty dated Jewish and racial stereotyping.
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
In the 2002 local elections an IDS led Tory party topped the poll and gained 238 seats whilst Tony Blair led Labour lost 334. Could Corbyn repeat that?
The seats fought in 2012 will be up for election in 2016. Here were the results in England and Wales last time around:
Labour did well in that cycle and were polling well at the time in the wake of the Omnishambles budget (the April 2012 ICM, for example, had the Conservatives on 33, Labour on 41).
Unless polling changes very sharply in the next few months, it looks more likely than not that Labour will be losing seats in 2016. Not the best start for the new leader, whoever he or she might be.
Hague did not do that well in the 1998 locals, nor IDS in the 2002 locals, nor Ed M in the 2011 elections, but in subsequent years they did better to shore up their position
Especially when a lot of characters are one dimensional pure heroes in the book.
I'd be inclined to agree - had they not been considerably less multi-faceted and less believable in the films.
I don't think it was the necessary process of making changes that wrecked the trilogy, but poor writing certainly played a part, along with Jackson's obsessive use of pan shots of cartoon landscapes.
Rather bizarrely Scottish Labour were struggling to get 100 folks along to the leadership hustings - Corbyn is already attracting many times that figure. The political commentators seem to think SLAB should be leading left, however, the party on the ground under the influence of John McT are fighting Blairism's last stand alongside Liz Kendall.
Corbyn would provide a huge shot in the arm for Scottish Labour, the SNP and Sturgeon would instantly become the establishment party and SLab the even more leftwing anti austerity party, changing the narrative. In the rest of the UK Corbyn would have little appeal short of a depression, in Scotland though he could certainly boost Labour because it has lost so much ground there in its leftwing, central belt heartlands
Mr. Doethur, 'wrecked' is too far. I like the films a lot, but it's undeniable there were substantial changes (some inexplicable and for the worse) from the books.
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
As it happens, I liked the second episode the best. Admittedly, they made Treebeard out to be thick as nine planks (no pun intended) and Grima so creepy that you wonder how he could ever have reached a position of influence.
I do get annoyed when film-makers have perfectly good source material, and think they can "improve" on it. Tree beard in the book was well aware how dangerous Saruman was, and was trying to persuade the other Ents to fight. But, they were worried they'd be destroyed. Denethor in the book is a fine ruler and commander, whose will breaks at the end. Those story lines are far more credible than the film versions.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
In that case, you need to get rid of the following other degrees (among others):
English Literature, Philosophy, Anthropology, History, Economy, Politics, Art...
(I suspect Economics has a strongly negative value for the country, so that would be first to go).
Economics has one of the highest earnings returns for a degree, half of those working in investment banking or hedge funds and many CEOs and company chairmen studied economics. Indeed, economics has a higher return than some sciences, especially if you do science then research in a lab
It's not always true someone doing a "vocational" course has got a clear ambition for work, particularly since colleges offer supposedly "vocational" courses that have often become severely detached from the needs of employers. A traditional apprenticeship involved input from a prospective employer, but more youngsters now take vocational diploma courses which are often pitched well below the level you'd need to get a job. The theory is you can complete a foundation course, then work up to a national certificate/national diploma which approaches an employable standard. In practice this can easily degenerate into a way to doss around for a few years once you have to leave school, if you're not bright enough (or simply didn't work hard enough during your GCSEs, which I'd suggest is far more common) to take A-levels. And kids who doss around on such a course aren't going to pass with a high enough grade for the department to accept them onto the useful courses the next level up, so they're basically kicked out back to square one.
One of the things I disliked about FE was kids who used their 3 year funding (especially during the EMA era) to do the "carousel", switching between those very basic pre-entry level qualifications in three unrelated subjects (a common combination was three out of five of childcare, hairdressing, IT, business, retail in some order) without ever obtaining enough skills in any of those to become employable.
Another issue was that some of the popular vocational options, even at the more serious national certificate/national diploma level, are massively oversubscribed: check out how many diploma in photography students your local colleges have (you'll often see the college's photography exhibitions in your local paper, which will give you an idea). Then check out how many photography jobs there are in your local area. Your local paper may have a couple of photographers who they've had for years, plus a few freelancers...there may be the odd artistic photographer who makes a living locally, plus a few studio and wedding photographers, but every time I've done this rough calculation in any town I've lived in, there has always been an order of magnitude more photography diploma "graduates" each year than there have been jobs locally. Even worse for "performing arts" students of course. But on the academic track, there are plenty of sixth formers who go off to spend £X thousand, where X is a largish number, on History of Art degrees.
So whenever I hear announcements of "thousands of new vocational courses" I'm generally sceptical unless I can see some evidence of employer input. But in practice many "apprenticeships" with companies are being used to fund low-quality below-minimum-wage work.
Having worked in further, higher and adult education, I'm torn on educational timing.
Frankly a lot of teens are too young for it and make poor decisions about what they will study that turn out to have very little relevance for their future. They rarely understand the jobs market or the importance of up-skilling: in fact vocational students often have a much clearer skills-based approach to their education and career than A-level students do.
Adult education students almost invariably have a better focus, vision and motivation than the kids and I think a lot of people would make better educational decisions if they waited til their late 20s. They're not going to college or uni for the life experience and to party, they're doing it to crack on with their path in life. But the flip side of that is that the investment in education pays off over time, for which reason it's better for people to study as early as possible. I had very motivated adult education students in their 40s who wanted to get into nursing or midwifery, for instance, but by the time they finished university and were out working, they might only have 15 years or so left before they retire: neither they nor the government was getting full value from that investment. Also adult ed is hard for people with young children: their motivation may be higher, but they also face severe constraints on their time and energy.
Having said that, there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
That produces the opposite problem that some people feel they had kids too young, and of course most graduates want to be free and single in their 20s, not married with kids until their thirties
IMO the risk is still on the downside. People deciding that uni is not for people like them. We should do everything we can to get people who could do it, to do it.
I personally would like to see a growth of mature students. With careers getting longer we need to find ways to support people who want to retrain.
We should not have people thinking university is not for the likes of them, but we should have people thinking if university is the right thing for their future. And if they decide not, to have a good alternative set out if they so wish.
The problem is really that latter clause: the alternatives are poor or unfairly derided (HND = Have No Degree).
I think UKIP were the only party to particularly address this in England at the last GE, although it got rather hidden behind their grammar school obsession.
I agree with your second paragraph, although my mother-in-law is perhaps taking it to extremes. She was forced to lave school at ?!4? to look after the family shop, and only started an art degree in her sixties. She's done a masters, and is now doing a doctorate!
Re HND on the technical-vocational side of things: as someone who taught HND in the past, I knew that most of my students were going to move on to a university to "top up" to a full BSc. So a lot of the stick that HND gets is unfair; it's most of the way to a degree and is basically equivalent to taking the first couple of years of one but getting a certificate for it. (Beats dropping out after two years on a conventional degree course and coming out with nothing to your name!)
I do get annoyed when film-makers have perfectly good source material, and think they can "improve" on it. Tree beard in the book was well aware how dangerous Saruman was, and was trying to persuade the other Ents to fight. But, they were worried they'd be destroyed. Denethor in the book is a fine ruler and commander, whose will breaks at the end. Those story lines are far more credible than the film versions.
Norman Tebbitt said much the same thing in the Telegraph.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation: Matthew Parris and Norman Tebbitt could both paedophiles covering up for one of their own.
I have read rumours about a few politicians but never those 2, and Tebbit was careful to stress he and Heath disliked each other but as he was now dead he could no longer sue and defend himself
I think Tebbit the old man finds the modern level of Trial-By-Media to be rather unfair on someone with no right of reply. The clearly unfounded allegations from a couple of years ago about another colleague from 30 years ago probably don't help.
Norman Tebbitt said much the same thing in the Telegraph.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation: Matthew Parris and Norman Tebbitt could both paedophiles covering up for one of their own.
I have read rumours about a few politicians but never those 2, and Tebbit was careful to stress he and Heath disliked each other but as he was now dead he could no longer sue and defend himself
I don't like Tebbitt much. But I can fully believe, from what I know of his career, that he would speak up for an enemy if he believed said enemy to be the victim of a smear campaign without the right of reply.
Indeed, Tebbit is a bit rightwing for my tastes but his integrity is not in question, as he showed at the time of the Brighton Bombing and his care for his severely injured wife (which he also notes produced one of the few occasions he had a civil conversation with Heath when he visited him in hospital)
The only possible hope is wipe-out in next year's elections. That still leaves time to change for 2020. With the right leader and programme the Tories are very beatable. Sadly, right now it seems that Labour is not that interested in such a notion. It will need a few more jolts to change that.
Well, it's a thought SO. But I wonder - have the Labour base already priced in catastrophe at next year's elections to the leadership result? Let's face it, the odds of them holding even half the local and Holyrood seats in Scotland they have at present are not good (as in about 5000-1) and Wales is gradually drifting away too as we have seen in the Euro and General elections in the last 18 months (and while Carwyn Jones himself remains liked, his government is most certainly not).
So I am wondering if they will shrug and say, 'yeah, whatever, Miliband's fault for being naff, Corbyn will win us them back given another year' even if they lose every seat they hold. The only one that might make a difference in that case is defeat in the London mayoral election - and if Jowell is the candidate, surely Corbyn's supporters would take that as proof Labour isn't left wing enough?
Unless Corbyn and Macintosh lead them, SLab are unlikely to make significant gains in Scotland (though if the SNP press indyref too they may benefit from Tory and LD tactical voting). In Wales though Labour will win, they were still comfortably ahead of the Tories and Plaid in 2015, even with Tory gains
The new SLAB leader is due to be announced on 20th August - I don't think there are any betting markets still open, but the last odds I came across were Kezia 1/50 and Ken 12/1. I think the result will be closer than the odds suggest, there are around 15,000 SLAB members plus 6,000 new affiliates and supporters. I've got £50 on Ken to keep me interested.
Rather bizarrely Scottish Labour were struggling to get 100 folks along to the leadership hustings - Corbyn is already attracting many times that figure. The political commentators seem to think SLAB should be leading left, however, the party on the ground under the influence of John McT are fighting Blairism's last stand alongside Liz Kendall.
Corbyn would provide a huge shot in the arm for Scottish Labour, the SNP and Sturgeon would instantly become the establishment party and SLab the even more leftwing anti austerity party, changing the narrative. In the rest of the UK Corbyn would have little appeal short of a depression, in Scotland though he could certainly boost Labour because it has lost so much ground there in its leftwing, central belt heartlands
The problem with this theory is Corbyn would first need to do battle with SLAB before taking the fight to the SNP. Kezia the likely winner of the SLAB leadership contest has already been dishing him in the press and her Chief of Staff, John McT, is carpetbombing twitter with anti-Corbyn sentiment.
For what its worth I think Corbyn would prefer 56 on message SNP MPs rather than a bunch of nepostic placemen SLAB normally select, who spend more time fighting each other than the Tories let alone the SNP.
My point was that some degrees are worthwhile in a wider society, yet not paid well - so could be candidates for scholarships/reasonable to cancel fees.
There is nothing special about university education. It's increasingly necessary in the modern world. It should be prioritised. These students are no more investing in themselves than secondary students.
Bollocks.
University education is not right for everyone. People should be encouraged to do what is right for their own development. For some people that will mean academic study. For others vocational academics (e.g. law or engineering). Other people would be better off with practical (i.e. polytechnic based) courses that teach them skills that are relevant for a specific career.
We need to get away from the obsession that 50% of kids need to go to university, even if the course is pointless. In 2013 ONS commented:
the percentage of graduates working in non-graduate roles has risen, particularly since the 2008/09 recession. This suggests the increasing supply of graduates and the possible decrease in demand for them has had an effect on the type of job they are doing.
That was 47% of recent graduates in non-graduate roles.
Is that a productive investment for them, or the best use of 3 years of their time?
You're point is irrelevant. I didn't say it should be compulsory, just encouraged and free for those who want it. There is still inertia out there that university is "not for people like me". Nothing about that precludes other forms of further education that should be equally encouraged.
Why if something adds no value to society and, arguably has negative value to the participant (opportunity cost of 3 years at university rather than in work) should it be subsidised?
True, but I know some archaelogists and they do important work even on relatively low pay (sometimes including surveys for commercial organisations). Indeed, iron age remains were recently found near where I am presently based, previously undiscovered
snip... there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
That produces the opposite problem that some people feel they had kids too young, and of course most graduates want to be free and single in their 20s, not married with kids until their thirties
It does indeed. But actually the thirties and especially forties are a bad time to have kids in many ways, and those people I saw who had kids early and then got in with the higher education often didn't seem any the worse for it. Young mums in particular get a lot of stick for being "irresponsible" and "not thinking about the future", and my experience led me to think that criticism is potentially very unfair. (Though of course I only got to see the ones who went back into education, not the many who didn't. I know people personally in both camps, but the numbers I saw professionally would have weighted my experiences disproportionately to those who had managed to keep their life well on-track.)
An interesting thread and a broader argument within the party and without which seems to ignore two rather basic points.
1. Many people seem fixated on the narrative of the now - what people (allegedly) think now is all they will ever think and to suggest they thought something different before or might think something different in the future is Guaranteed To Lose. Nonsense - condition people with There Is No Alternative and of course the now has backing by the electorate. Easy to get support when nothing else is on offer.
2. This left/right nonsense. Our entire political spectrum is right wing now. Someone earlier pointed out that Kaufman - the man on the right - is now Kaufman - the man on the left - because right is now all there is on offer. The current parliamentary Labour party is mainly right wing, and I don't mean on the right of the party I mean right wing. They interviewed David Owen about the prospect of a new SDP split, and he pointed out to a surprised interviewer that Corbyn is positioned a long way to the right of the SDP. This is the "hard left" - the policies of the conservative German government. The policies of every Conservative government pre-Thatcher. No deficit and the lowest corporation tax in the G7. Outrageously investing in skills and training and industry as business keeps demanding.
And with respect to TINA fans, even the right are retrenching leftwards. Osborne dumped his economic targets at the budget and adopted ours. Boris has been banging the drum for higher wages - that a person on his living wage can't afford to rent anywhere in London now is clearly a problem regardless of political colours. We have to do something about wages and housing and bills because if we don't then people won't be able to afford to live and that means no money to buy goods and services with and thats the end of capitalism.
Corbyn will win, and I think he'll win in the first round. We have 4 candidates. One is attracting ever larger crowds at his round Britain meetings as he talks about his detailed and costed vision for the future. He's responsible for a flood of new members (and no, they aren't all infiltrators...). One has a cabal of supporters and offers radical options in the other direction but appears to have pissed off more people than supporters. One believes whatever you tell him to believe no he doesn't yes he does well maybe lets think about it. And the other whose name I have forgotten has said nothing of note at any point on any topic. People aren't flocking to support him because he's the obvious candidate to win, its because he's saying the things that people say and politicians don't. Like Farage does.
I don't remember the SDP meeting with terrorists or backing unilateral disarmament or withdrawal from NATO like Corbyn. Merkel is pushing through austerity, something Corbyn firmly opposes
If you're in the mood for procrastinating, I once spent almost a whole afternoon watching Honest Trailers - there's loads of them and exceptionally funny.
I don't remember the SDP meeting with terrorists or backing unilateral disarmament or withdrawal from NATO like Corbyn. Merkel is pushing through austerity, something Corbyn firmly opposes
Indeed. I'm not sure Syriza, who are often referred to by Corbynistas, would agree that his policies are those of Merkel!
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
If you're in the mood for procrastinating, I once spent almost a whole afternoon watching Honest Trailers - there's loads of them and exceptionally funny.
I don't remember the SDP meeting with terrorists or backing unilateral disarmament or withdrawal from NATO like Corbyn. Merkel is pushing through austerity, something Corbyn firmly opposes
Indeed. I'm not sure Syriza, who are often referred to by Corbynistas, would agree that his policies are those of Merkel!
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Hmph. BBC put up 'Not Just Cricket' instead of the commentary on the front page of the cricket live feed. HAve to rummage around to find Aggers and Vaughan. Not very impressive on the biggest day in English cricket since a certain Mr Pietersen took on Brett Lee and won in 2005, especially as the other one was all about the football and therefore all speculation.
snip... there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
That produces the opposite problem that some people feel they had kids too young, and of course most graduates want to be free and single in their 20s, not married with kids until their thirties
It does indeed. But actually the thirties and especially forties are a bad time to have kids in many ways, and those people I saw who had kids early and then got in with the higher education often didn't seem any the worse for it. Young mums in particular get a lot of stick for being "irresponsible" and "not thinking about the future", and my experience led me to think that criticism is potentially very unfair. (Though of course I only got to see the ones who went back into education, not the many who didn't. I know people personally in both camps, but the numbers I saw professionally would have weighted my experiences disproportionately to those who had managed to keep their life well on-track.)
It does help to have a career first before you have kids, if you have kids first and then delay uni and a career that will also lead to a decade or more of lost earnings and creates problems eg more families having to live with parents etc. There are many good young parents, but it will be unlikely to become the norm
Sometimes, little things can be easiest to get wrong. Bows were loosed or shot, for example. They weren't fired, because firearms didn't exist (and there was, quite literally, no fire). I've probably missed that once or twice but I try and get things like that right [I don't write historical fiction but when you've clearly nicked a lot/been inspired by history there are certain things you want to be plausible].
The Lord of the Rings films, of course, got that completely wrong. Along with other little things like Tolkien's subtexts and large chunks of the plot.
I'll defend them. Good movies, even if I don't like all the changes or would have done things the same way. In some areas it's better than the books, in some areas worse, so no harm no foul.
If you're in the mood for procrastinating, I once spent almost a whole afternoon watching Honest Trailers - there's loads of them and exceptionally funny.
They also do HonestGameTrailers, in addition to the film ones. A good channel. I particularly liked the Star Trek (2009) one, and the epic, dramatic 'lens flares' sequence.
Rather bizarrely Scottish Labour were struggling to get 100 folks along to the leadership hustings - Corbyn is already attracting many times that figure. The political commentators seem to think SLAB should be leading left, however, the party on the ground under the influence of John McT are fighting Blairism's last stand alongside Liz Kendall.
Corbyn would provide a huge shot in the arm for Scottish Labour, the SNP and Sturgeon would instantly become the establishment party and SLab the even more leftwing anti austerity party, changing the narrative. In the rest of the UK Corbyn would have little appeal short of a depression, in Scotland though he could certainly boost Labour because it has lost so much ground there in its leftwing, central belt heartlands
The problem with this theory is Corbyn would first need to do battle with SLAB before taking the fight to the SNP. Kezia the likely winner of the SLAB leadership contest has already been dishing him in the press and her Chief of Staff, John McT, is carpetbombing twitter with anti-Corbyn sentiment.
For what its worth I think Corbyn would prefer 56 on message SNP MPs rather than a bunch of nepostic placemen SLAB normally select, who spend more time fighting each other than the Tories let alone the SNP.
Which was why I said a Corbyn-Macintosh ticket would be best for SLAB. But even so, the national leader makes a difference, that was why Ed Miliband did far worse in Scotland than Gordon Brown. Dissent is also beginning to stir in the SNP too over the inclusion or not of indyref 2 in the party's Holyrood manifesto for next year
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
I felt the Lord of the Rings movies were a bit too cheesy in their special effects and comic relief, but it is absurd to think there should not be changes from a book when it is adapted to the screen. Especially when a lot of characters are one dimensional pure heroes in the book. Authors like GRR Martin who have also done screen writing are very comfortable with these changes. Tolkien seemed like a bit of a stick in the mud about it, as do many of his fans. That's especially odd when he wanted the tale to become a British myth. Myths of course always change dramatically from telling to telling depending on the teller.
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
Just heard on the commentary England are indeed the first ever team to have four different bowlers take six wickets in an innings in four consecutive innings.
snip... there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
That produces the opposite problem that some people feel they had kids too young, and of course most graduates want to be free and single in their 20s, not married with kids until their thirties
It does indeed. But actually the thirties and especially forties are a bad time to have kids in many ways, and those people I saw who had kids early and then got in with the higher education often didn't seem any the worse for it. Young mums in particular get a lot of stick for being "irresponsible" and "not thinking about the future", and my experience led me to think that criticism is potentially very unfair. (Though of course I only got to see the ones who went back into education, not the many who didn't. I know people personally in both camps, but the numbers I saw professionally would have weighted my experiences disproportionately to those who had managed to keep their life well on-track.)
It does help to have a career first before you have kids, if you have kids first and then delay uni and a career that will also lead to a decade or more of lost earnings and creates problems eg more families having to live with parents etc. There are many good young parents, but it will be unlikely to become the norm
I think I am a much better first-time father in my early forties than I would have been in my teens or twenties. I am much more relaxed, at ease with myself and, best of all, I have achieved something for myself, which makes it easier to give all to the young 'un.
Norman Tebbitt said much the same thing in the Telegraph.
Of course, there is an alternative explanation: Matthew Parris and Norman Tebbitt could both paedophiles covering up for one of their own.
I have read rumours about a few politicians but never those 2, and Tebbit was careful to stress he and Heath disliked each other but as he was now dead he could no longer sue and defend himself
I think Tebbit the old man finds the modern level of Trial-By-Media to be rather unfair on someone with no right of reply. The clearly unfounded allegations from a couple of years ago about another colleague from 30 years ago probably don't help.
Indeed, he mentioned Lord McAlpine and how he at least had a right of reply unlike Heath
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
As it happens, I liked the second episode the best. Admittedly, they made Treebeard out to be thick as nine planks (no pun intended) and Grima so creepy that you wonder how he could ever have reached a position of influence.
I do get annoyed when film-makers have perfectly good source material, and think they can "improve" on it. Tree beard in the book was well aware how dangerous Saruman was, and was trying to persuade the other Ents to fight. But, they were worried they'd be destroyed. Denethor in the book is a fine ruler and commander, whose will breaks at the end. Those story lines are far more credible than the film versions.
Denethor's will was broken, it didn't break of its own accord
Mr. Doethur, not well-versed enough to comment much (although they completely cocked up Denethor), but others who know better agree with that assessment, particularly on Aragorn.
Some characters they cocked up:
Denethor Aragorn Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir') Elrond Arwen Sam Theoden Eomer Eowyn Galadriel Legolas Gimli Saruman Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
As it happens, I liked the second episode the best. Admittedly, they made Treebeard out to be thick as nine planks (no pun intended) and Grima so creepy that you wonder how he could ever have reached a position of influence.
I do get annoyed when film-makers have perfectly good source material, and think they can "improve" on it. Tree beard in the book was well aware how dangerous Saruman was, and was trying to persuade the other Ents to fight. But, they were worried they'd be destroyed. Denethor in the book is a fine ruler and commander, whose will breaks at the end. Those story lines are far more credible than the film versions.
I do think Denethor was better in the book version, but I assumed the main change in the movie version was that his will had just broken earlier, before Gandalf turns up. He seems far more together in the flashback. As for Treebeard, I distinctively remember him in the book conveying the message of it not being their fight, in the hope the Ents could hunker it out. It was a direct criticism of the isolationists before the First World War.
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
I'd agree with that. I'm very forgiving of adaptations and and remakes, in particular as the original is still there, unchanged, if people have problems with them - which is not to say, as you point out, they cannot make mistakes, they should not be immune to criticism, but in good adaptations, a lot of the mistakes or changes are not so bad as to undermine the work completely, even if particular parts or characters are ill served.
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
Dennis Lilley and Rodney Marsh I think both placed bets that England would win. At the time it was viewed as a bit of a laugh- today they would likely be charged and imprisoned.
Although I must admit I have a law degree, I think the STEM/other distinction can go too far.
We don't ask people in general to pursue "worthy" careers. If big city lawyers (which is a subset of course) make plenty of dosh without much social good then we tax them and they can pay for schools. And we have lawyers to help support more "socially valuable" careers.
Whilst there's a case for graduating fees to take account of current shortages, I don't think we can reasonably aim for a long term moulding of careers.
We'll always need scientists and engineers far more than media experts and sociologists, therefore STEM subjects should be encouraged. Economic wealth comes from making things not reporting on events, we must invest in our future through bright youngsters.
Mr. JEO, maybe. It's a long time since I read the book, but I seem to recall Denethor being basically sound, then cracking. In the flashback (in the extended version only, for those who can't remember it) he still came across as a bit of a dick.
Incidentally, it's interesting to consider Isildur in light of The Silmarillion, which includes things he did back on Numenor which were heroic (without him the White Tree wouldn't exist in Gondor). It's understandable he's two-dimensional in LOTR, but becomes more interesting when his heroic past is known.
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
As a long time fan of A Game of Thrones, aka "A Song of Ice and Fire" I put part of the blame for TV changes on George RR Martin himself. He, as an author of a best selling series, has been guilty of not finishing this work for his fans. He has instead written lesser works while leaving millions of readers in a virtual limbo. For example The Winds of Winter was promised to readers two years ago. It still has to be published.
snip... there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
That produces the opposite problem that some people feel they had kids too young, and of course most graduates want to be free and single in their 20s, not married with kids until their thirties
It does indeed. But actually the thirties and especially forties are a bad time to have kids in many ways, and those people I saw who had kids early and then got in with the higher education often didn't seem any the worse for it. Young mums in particular get a lot of stick for being "irresponsible" and "not thinking about the future", and my experience led me to think that criticism is potentially very unfair. (Though of course I only got to see the ones who went back into education, not the many who didn't. I know people personally in both camps, but the numbers I saw professionally would have weighted my experiences disproportionately to those who had managed to keep their life well on-track.)
It does help to have a career first before you have kids, if you have kids first and then delay uni and a career that will also lead to a decade or more of lost earnings and creates problems eg more families having to live with parents etc. There are many good young parents, but it will be unlikely to become the norm
I think I am a much better first-time father in my early forties than I would have been in my teens or twenties. I am much more relaxed, at ease with myself and, best of all, I have achieved something for myself, which makes it easier to give all to the young 'un.
Indeed, though obviously it is probably better not to leave becoming a father too late when you are physically less able
I do think Denethor was better in the book version, but I assumed the main change in the movie version was that his will had just broken earlier, before Gandalf turns up. He seems far more together in the flashback. As for Treebeard, I distinctively remember him in the book conveying the message of it not being their fight, in the hope the Ents could hunker it out. It was a direct criticism of the isolationists before the First World War.
'But Saruman! Saruman is a neighbour! I cannot overlook him. I must do something, I suppose: I have often wondered, lately, what I should do about Saruman...I will stop it! and you shall come with me. You may be able to help. Our roads go together - to Isengard!'
Book 3, Chapter 4 ('Treebeard') my edition pp. 83 and 85, somewhat edited but without changing the meaning.
True, I think I could have done better than those screenwriters, even though I actually prefer Pratchett to Tolkien (Pratchett was another who muddled 'fire' and 'loose' with regard to arrows, of course). But that is because it is hard to imagine doing worse!
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
As a long time fan of A Game of Thrones, aka "A Song of Ice and Fire" I put part of the blame for TV changes on George RR Martin himself. He, as an author of a best selling series, has been guilty of not finishing this work for his fans. He has instead written lesser works while leaving millions of readers in a virtual limbo. For example The Winds of Winter was promised to readers two years ago. It still has to be published.
I recall his infamous comment at the end of A Feast for Crows about the follow up coming 'next year' or words to that effect - I received the book in my first weeks of Uni. An undergraduate and masters degree later, no sign of that follow up.
Mr. JEO, maybe. It's a long time since I read the book, but I seem to recall Denethor being basically sound, then cracking. In the flashback (in the extended version only, for those who can't remember it) he still came across as a bit of a dick.
Incidentally, it's interesting to consider Isildur in light of The Silmarillion, which includes things he did back on Numenor which were heroic (without him the White Tree wouldn't exist in Gondor). It's understandable he's two-dimensional in LOTR, but becomes more interesting when his heroic past is known.
Also quite a lot on him in Unfinished Tales, which really adds a lot to the character. If you've never read them, I would recommend them.
In fairness to the film-makers, a problem with Tolkien is that he was basing the novel on an entire alternate reality loosely constructed in his head, which changed a lot even while he was writing. It must have been hard to bring that out - but I still think they did a pretty bad job and made very many avoidable mistakes that undermined their efforts.
EDIT - the 'would of' thing. I could be wrong, but I think that was only in speech. I don't think it's in the narrative itself. THat's something that always annoys me, but in fairness it is the way it is said these days (even though it shouldn't've been)
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
I've enjoyed Season 1-4 of A Game of Thrones, and Parts 1 and 2 of LOTR, and the first half of Part 3. But, I thought the second half of Part 3 was a very botched job.
WRT the specific changes you mention, I agree (I've yet to see Hardhome, but people say it's outstanding). Choosing Sean Bean as Boromir was excellent, and while I think it's implausible that Tywin wouldn't investigate further who this highborn girl actually was, I did love the conversations they had together.
OTOH, nobody has a good word to say about the way they've adapted the Dornish plot line.
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
I've enjoyed Season 1-4 of A Game of Thrones, and Parts 1 and 2 of LOTR, and the first half of Part 3. But, I thought the second half of Part 3 was a very botched job.
WRT the specific changes you mention, I agree (I've yet to see Hardhome, but people say it's outstanding). Choosing Sean Bean as Boromir was excellent, and while I think it's implausible that Tywin wouldn't investigate further who this highborn girl actually was, I did love the conversations they had together.
OTOH, nobody has a good word to say about the way they've adapted the Dornish plot line.
I will, I never liked that plotline really (nor the Ironborn), although I suppose that's not so much a defence of that actual change, rather just generic 'I don't mind'.
I do think Denethor was better in the book version, but I assumed the main change in the movie version was that his will had just broken earlier, before Gandalf turns up. He seems far more together in the flashback. As for Treebeard, I distinctively remember him in the book conveying the message of it not being their fight, in the hope the Ents could hunker it out. It was a direct criticism of the isolationists before the First World War.
'But Saruman! Saruman is a neighbour! I cannot overlook him. I must do something, I suppose: I have often wondered, lately, what I should do about Saruman...I will stop it! and you shall come with me. You may be able to help. Our roads go together - to Isengard!'
Book 3, Chapter 4 ('Treebeard') my edition pp. 83 and 85, somewhat edited but without changing the meaning.
True, I think I could have done better than those screenwriters, even though I actually prefer Pratchett to Tolkien (Pratchett was another who muddled 'fire' and 'loose' with regard to arrows, of course). But that is because it is hard to imagine doing worse!
Good scripts from amateur screenwriters get picked up by big studios all the time. If you are a more talented screenwriter than three major award-winners, I suggest you give it a try.
Good scripts from amateur screenwriters get picked up by big studios all the time. If you are a more talented screenwriter than three major award-winners, I suggest you give it a try.
One day I would like to - if I have the time.
Are there any studios with a particular penchant for giving scripts to complete outsiders? If there are I'd be glad to know of it.
Plenty of fans of George Martin's books are critical of the ways in which his series has been adapted (myself included). That doesn't mean there's not much to like about the adaptation, but there are flaws and plot holes, and attempts made by the producers to "improve" the original.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
While adapters can certainly make mistakes, there is a tendency for book fans to complain bitterly at virtually any change. Often these are people that show a complete lack of awareness that visual media needs to explain plot points more for viewers to take them in, for dramatic tension to be maintained, and for a suitable pacing to be kept to, lest people feel bored or rushed. They also seem very keen to say characters are 'butchered' just because they are different, or to find plot holes that can be easily explained away.
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
I've enjoyed Season 1-4 of A Game of Thrones, and Parts 1 and 2 of LOTR, and the first half of Part 3. But, I thought the second half of Part 3 was a very botched job.
WRT the specific changes you mention, I agree (I've yet to see Hardhome, but people say it's outstanding). Choosing Sean Bean as Boromir was excellent, and while I think it's implausible that Tywin wouldn't investigate further who this highborn girl actually was, I did love the conversations they had together.
OTOH, nobody has a good word to say about the way they've adapted the Dornish plot line.
Did Roose investigate who the highborn girl was in the books? I recall Arya came up with a plausible explanation of her northern house that temporarily satisfied him, and he was planning a war.
I get the impression the Dornish storyline had lots of filming problems (three days to shoot it) and they ended up cutting it down to the minimum to introduce characters. There were still some good bits, and the bad bits don't distract too much.
Good scripts from amateur screenwriters get picked up by big studios all the time. If you are a more talented screenwriter than three major award-winners, I suggest you give it a try.
One day I would like to - if I have the time.
Are there any studios with a particular penchant for giving scripts to complete outsiders? If there are I'd be glad to know of it.
You might have a go at "The Wheel of Time". 14 books and a nearly 3 million words. Just ring Tor Books and ask for Harriet.
Ed Balls lost this year because he refused to chicken-run away from a negative constituency redrawing in 2005-10, while his wife held the adjacent safe seat constructed in a small part from his old wards. His successor Andrea Jenkyns is probably facing a similar scenario, come the next redistribution, without the constraints of marital propriety on using one's leverage to find a safe seat.
When was the last time that a politician so visibly diminished in an election campaign as Andy Burnham has? He might yet win but he looks much less credible as a leader than he did when the leadership election began.
Portillo started the 2001 Tory race with over 100 nominations, he ended up third. Davis had almost the same in 2005 but after his conference speech collapsed. David Miliband was the overwhelming favourite in 2010 in terms of MPs declarations and early polls before he was overtaken by Ed. Burnham has not diminished as much as those 3 and he only became frontrunner when the previous frontrunner, Chuka Umunna pulled out
I was watching come of the contemporary coverage of Cameron's win. It seems Davis' speech was only poor by comparison, rather than in absolute.
Media coverage of it was very poor, especially by the likes of Tom Bradby for ITN
I rewatched most of the Question Time debate.
Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
Though interestingly some polls had Davis winning the debate
ConHome said later:
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
Indeed, historians will see the late nineties to the early 2020s as the age of Blair and Cameron
This has been a pretty poor series to be honest. None of the test matches have been competitive, and it seems the coin toss has been decisive- except for the last test match when Clarke inexplicably decided to bat.
Granted there have been moments of real excitement- but test matches are supposed to last five days. In this series they have been reduced to little more than one sided one dayers.
Comments
I do like fantasy, but it's still fun taking the piss out of certain tropes, cliches and so forth (like the eagles in LOTR).
Edited extra bit: decided to delete, in case it goes up it'll probably be better as a small surprise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/11791700/Michael-Clarke-to-quit-Test-cricket-after-Australia-Ashes-debacle.html
Denethor
Aragorn
Faramir (known as 'Far from the book-o mir')
Elrond
Arwen
Sam
Theoden
Eomer
Eowyn
Galadriel
Legolas
Gimli
Saruman
Treebeard
In fact, even with TLOTR it might be quicker to list the mistakes Boyens and Walsh didn't make. It was frankly a pretty poor effort and the second episode was particularly disappointing.
Admittedly, they were making a film and that's different from a novel. But at the same time, it's hard to dispute Tolkien's own comment when he saw a film script in the 1960s: 'I don't mind people cutting things, but I wish they wouldn't change them.'
It's bizarre, given the actual ending in the book makes more sense *and* provides a better ending than the ridiculously prolonged ending of Return of the King.
The one small problem - who do you replace him with as a batsman? Call up Mark Cosgrove, who surely has to be, regardless of his girth, the replacement for Rogers at the top of the order? Or Michael Klinger, if he's fit?
It's a dead rubber.
Consider it an exhibition for a long-standing captain.
Frankly a lot of teens are too young for it and make poor decisions about what they will study that turn out to have very little relevance for their future. They rarely understand the jobs market or the importance of up-skilling: in fact vocational students often have a much clearer skills-based approach to their education and career than A-level students do.
Adult education students almost invariably have a better focus, vision and motivation than the kids and I think a lot of people would make better educational decisions if they waited til their late 20s. They're not going to college or uni for the life experience and to party, they're doing it to crack on with their path in life. But the flip side of that is that the investment in education pays off over time, for which reason it's better for people to study as early as possible. I had very motivated adult education students in their 40s who wanted to get into nursing or midwifery, for instance, but by the time they finished university and were out working, they might only have 15 years or so left before they retire: neither they nor the government was getting full value from that investment. Also adult ed is hard for people with young children: their motivation may be higher, but they also face severe constraints on their time and energy.
Having said that, there are plenty of people (mostly women) who invest heavily in education and training until their early 20s, then drop out of the labour force entirely around the age of 30 to have children. That's an even shorter timespan to expect a return on. I've sometimes wondered whether we should restructure our lifestyles so that we get the "having kids" business out of the way aged about 20, then head back to higher education in the late 20s or early 30s once the kids are at school and we know clearly what it is that we want to do. I taught a lot of adult education students like that (they were mostly women, of whom the majority had had kids aged 16 to early 20s) and in many ways their life decisions seemed more sensible than those of sixth formers I'd taught.
I don't think it was the necessary process of making changes that wrecked the trilogy, but poor writing certainly played a part, along with Jackson's obsessive use of pan shots of cartoon landscapes.
In 1981 England were 92 runs in arrears and seven down as Dilley strode out to meet Beefy and immortality.
I do get annoyed when film-makers have perfectly good source material, and think they can "improve" on it. Tree beard in the book was well aware how dangerous Saruman was, and was trying to persuade the other Ents to fight. But, they were worried they'd be destroyed. Denethor in the book is a fine ruler and commander, whose will breaks at the end. Those story lines are far more credible than the film versions.
It's not always true someone doing a "vocational" course has got a clear ambition for work, particularly since colleges offer supposedly "vocational" courses that have often become severely detached from the needs of employers. A traditional apprenticeship involved input from a prospective employer, but more youngsters now take vocational diploma courses which are often pitched well below the level you'd need to get a job. The theory is you can complete a foundation course, then work up to a national certificate/national diploma which approaches an employable standard. In practice this can easily degenerate into a way to doss around for a few years once you have to leave school, if you're not bright enough (or simply didn't work hard enough during your GCSEs, which I'd suggest is far more common) to take A-levels. And kids who doss around on such a course aren't going to pass with a high enough grade for the department to accept them onto the useful courses the next level up, so they're basically kicked out back to square one.
One of the things I disliked about FE was kids who used their 3 year funding (especially during the EMA era) to do the "carousel", switching between those very basic pre-entry level qualifications in three unrelated subjects (a common combination was three out of five of childcare, hairdressing, IT, business, retail in some order) without ever obtaining enough skills in any of those to become employable.
Another issue was that some of the popular vocational options, even at the more serious national certificate/national diploma level, are massively oversubscribed: check out how many diploma in photography students your local colleges have (you'll often see the college's photography exhibitions in your local paper, which will give you an idea). Then check out how many photography jobs there are in your local area. Your local paper may have a couple of photographers who they've had for years, plus a few freelancers...there may be the odd artistic photographer who makes a living locally, plus a few studio and wedding photographers, but every time I've done this rough calculation in any town I've lived in, there has always been an order of magnitude more photography diploma "graduates" each year than there have been jobs locally. Even worse for "performing arts" students of course. But on the academic track, there are plenty of sixth formers who go off to spend £X thousand, where X is a largish number, on History of Art degrees.
So whenever I hear announcements of "thousands of new vocational courses" I'm generally sceptical unless I can see some evidence of employer input. But in practice many "apprenticeships" with companies are being used to fund low-quality below-minimum-wage work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2cS5Fv5xIQ
For what its worth I think Corbyn would prefer 56 on message SNP MPs rather than a bunch of nepostic placemen SLAB normally select, who spend more time fighting each other than the Tories let alone the SNP.
notwriting...Cameron is the clear winner (particularly at the beginning).
But Voges is no Botham.
EDIT: and Johnson is no Bob Willis, either.
In general, films have to be less subtle than books, relying less on the thoughts of the characters, and more on spectacle and shock. But, that doesn't stop me getting annoyed when they butcher a character from the books that I love, or love to hate, or have them behaving in ludicrous ways.
Just heard on the commentary England are indeed the first ever team to have four different bowlers take six wickets in an innings in four consecutive innings.
Thought you might appreciate knowing that!
"England become the first team to have four different bowlers take six wickets in consecutive innings"
Suggests that some lesser records hadn't fallen.
Jeremy Corbyn on Hamas, the Middle East and the super-rich
A very dangerous man!!!
Plus there are plenty of choices the producers do to improve the original work that genuinely improve it. From the two works we've discussed, Arya being the cupbearer to Tywin, Boromir being a much more fleshed out character or Jon Snow going to Hardhome, for example.
I often think it's the literary equivalent to "virtue signalling". The point is partially to show off how much of a book fan you are, and understand just how much better you know it than these stupid TV producers.
Bit harsh on Stuart Broad if it goes to someone else. 8 in the first innings but not 10 in the match!
It's a classic story of hubris and nemesis
I'd say they were!
Although I must admit I have a law degree, I think the STEM/other distinction can go too far.
We don't ask people in general to pursue "worthy" careers. If big city lawyers (which is a subset of course) make plenty of dosh without much social good then we tax them and they can pay for schools. And we have lawyers to help support more "socially valuable" careers.
Whilst there's a case for graduating fees to take account of current shortages, I don't think we can reasonably aim for a long term moulding of careers.
We'll always need scientists and engineers far more than media experts and sociologists, therefore STEM subjects should be encouraged. Economic wealth comes from making things not reporting on events, we must invest in our future through bright youngsters.
Incidentally, it's interesting to consider Isildur in light of The Silmarillion, which includes things he did back on Numenor which were heroic (without him the White Tree wouldn't exist in Gondor). It's understandable he's two-dimensional in LOTR, but becomes more interesting when his heroic past is known.
True, I think I could have done better than those screenwriters, even though I actually prefer Pratchett to Tolkien (Pratchett was another who muddled 'fire' and 'loose' with regard to arrows, of course). But that is because it is hard to imagine doing worse!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lp3RhzfgI&index=26&list=FLg5SdxeHca5JpoZ1j9-RpJg
Only read a few of his. Normally I read chapter-by-chapter, and 100 pages in or so suddenly realised they seemed to be missing
In fairness to the film-makers, a problem with Tolkien is that he was basing the novel on an entire alternate reality loosely constructed in his head, which changed a lot even while he was writing. It must have been hard to bring that out - but I still think they did a pretty bad job and made very many avoidable mistakes that undermined their efforts.
EDIT - the 'would of' thing. I could be wrong, but I think that was only in speech. I don't think it's in the narrative itself. THat's something that always annoys me, but in fairness it is the way it is said these days (even though it shouldn't've been)
WRT the specific changes you mention, I agree (I've yet to see Hardhome, but people say it's outstanding). Choosing Sean Bean as Boromir was excellent, and while I think it's implausible that Tywin wouldn't investigate further who this highborn girl actually was, I did love the conversations they had together.
OTOH, nobody has a good word to say about the way they've adapted the Dornish plot line.
"David Davis still won the Question Time debate. He demonstrated a superior grasp of policy and he crystallised the choice before party activists. After three Blair governments people were tired of the politics of spin. “Frankly,” he said, “this is the worst moment for the Conservative Party to imitate Tony Blair.” But he failed to break the love affair between the party and Cameron."
Cameron beat the man, Davis won the ball.
That much I would agree with.
Perhaps the association with Blair is not poisonous to me rewatching as it was contemporaneously - Cameron has that similar air of pausing for a moment and coming out with something well composed.
And, Ashes won!
True, I think I could have done better than those screenwriters, even though I actually prefer Pratchett to Tolkien (Pratchett was another who muddled 'fire' and 'loose' with regard to arrows, of course). But that is because it is hard to imagine doing worse!
Good scripts from amateur screenwriters get picked up by big studios all the time. If you are a more talented screenwriter than three major award-winners, I suggest you give it a try.
Are there any studios with a particular penchant for giving scripts to complete outsiders? If there are I'd be glad to know of it.
That said, I just amended one instance when a beta reader flagged it.
I get the impression the Dornish storyline had lots of filming problems (three days to shoot it) and they ended up cutting it down to the minimum to introduce characters. There were still some good bits, and the bad bits don't distract too much.
Granted there have been moments of real excitement- but test matches are supposed to last five days. In this series they have been reduced to little more than one sided one dayers.