So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Indeed - Mr Surbiton was way more bullish about the Tory score than I was.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
What does Hammond think of a woman as Dr Who? The other day he was marvelling that modern technology meant women could even drive trains. What about a Tardis?
Of course he wasn't but you are happy to repeat the slur.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
You're fortunate I don't bet because a review of my pre-election posts will see my expectations were mostly for 50+ at best. Albeit still wrong but I'm loving the lefty hubris.
Wrong but close is a very unprofitable betting mindset.
...have already seen plenty of my favourite sci-fi characters successfully recast as women...
The only two I can think of off the top of my head are Missy (Dr Who) and Starbuck in the BSG reboot. Which ones were you thinking of?
Off the top of my head
Thor in the Marvel comics. Holly in Red Dwarf M in James Bond
I must admit the one I thought worked best was Starbuck in the BSG reboot.
Oh well if you're going to go Marvel comics, we'd have to include Tony Stark/RiRi Williams and Logan/Laura Kinney as well, but I was referring to moving media. I should have gotten Holly, tho...
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Mr. Viewcode, has there ever been only a male companion in New Who? Could be wrong, but I believe the model has been a male Doctor, female companion, and occasionally another companion who might be male.
On gender: does this ever jump the other way? What would people think about a male Ripley in a new Alien(s) film?
[I only think demographics matter if they're integral to the character. As a womaniser, I'd say Bond's male. Similarly, Othello should be black, etc etc].
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
Am I crazy for wondering if there's value in going Lib Dems for most seats at the next election at 279/1?
If the next election is post Brexit (>60%) AND Brexit/economy is going badly (possible) ... Is it not possible people might look favourably on Uncle Vince? He probably beats TM or JC on the economy?
Lib Dems could perhaps stand on an EEA deal or something like that. This election IMO was too soon for anyone to change their mind on Brexit. I certainly expect Brexit to be a more pressing issue next time around...
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
As will be confirmed on Wednesday - the BBC can get away with paying her a lot less than a chap....
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
What does Hammond think of a woman as Dr Who? The other day he was marvelling that modern technology meant women could even drive trains. What about a Tardis?
Of course he wasn't but you are happy to repeat the slur.
Hammomd was hitting out at the RMT who are in sole charge of hiring train drivers and only 5% are women
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
Mr. Viewcode, has there ever been only a male companion in New Who? Could be wrong, but I believe the model has been a male Doctor, female companion, and occasionally another companion who might be male.
On gender: does this ever jump the other way? What would people think about a male Ripley in a new Alien(s) film?
[I only think demographics matter if they're integral to the character. As a womaniser, I'd say Bond's male. Similarly, Othello should be black, etc etc].
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but their are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
It's not unprecedented for the election "winners" to have negative publicity either. In 2005, Labour had a disastrous press in the weeks afterwards because they'd not won by as much as expected and had a very poor share of the vote, Blair was declared a dead man walking, and Brown immediately went on maneuveures...... but they still kept the lead in the polls for months afterwards, because, even when there's negative publicity, election winners always get a honeymoon. It is incredibly unusual, and very impressive on Labour's part, that there's been no honeymoon at all this time.
Oppositions going 20 points ahead within weeks of losing an election just does not happen, ever, no matter how bad the situation is for the government. Voters don't admit they got their decision wrong in an election that quickly, even if they eventually they change their minds a year or two later.
Again you ignore the fact that the Labour boost has already petered out and the unique circumstances of today. I love your notion that this is May's honeymoon period. I salute your loyalty to Mr Corbyn - this is excellent news for the tories.
The worst post-election polling for a newly-elected government in nearly 40 years is somehow "excellent news for the tories". If you say so....
Mr. Viewcode, has there ever been only a male companion in New Who? Could be wrong, but I believe the model has been a male Doctor, female companion, and occasionally another companion who might be male
You could make an argument that certain male companions were briefly the sole companion on Old Who, but no, the male companion has never been the sole companion in New Who.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but their are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
It's not unprecedented for the election "winners" to have negative publicity either. In 2005, Labour had a disastrous press in the weeks afterwards because they'd not won by as much as expected and had a very poor share of the vote, Blair was declared a dead man walking, and Brown immediately went on maneuveures...... but they still kept the lead in the polls for months afterwards, because, even when there's negative publicity, election winners always get a honeymoon. It is incredibly unusual, and very impressive on Labour's part, that there's been no honeymoon at all this time.
Oppositions going 20 points ahead within weeks of losing an election just does not happen, ever, no matter how bad the situation is for the government. Voters don't admit they got their decision wrong in an election that quickly, even if they eventually they change their minds a year or two later.
Again you ignore the fact that the Labour boost has already petered out and the unique circumstances of today. I love your notion that this is May's honeymoon period. I salute your loyalty to Mr Corbyn - this is excellent news for the tories.
The worst post-election polling for a government in nearly 40 years is somehow "excellent news for the tories". If you say so....
As a highly partisan Tory, I'm ignoring all the polls that have Labour ahead
Mr. Viewcode, has there ever been only a male companion in New Who? Could be wrong, but I believe the model has been a male Doctor, female companion, and occasionally another companion who might be male.
On gender: does this ever jump the other way? What would people think about a male Ripley in a new Alien(s) film?
[I only think demographics matter if they're integral to the character. As a womaniser, I'd say Bond's male. Similarly, Othello should be black, etc etc].
Have you ever seen the end of The Crying Game?
I once saw a production of The Tempest played by just three male actors.
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
What does Hammond think of a woman as Dr Who? The other day he was marvelling that modern technology meant women could even drive trains. What about a Tardis?
Of course he wasn't but you are happy to repeat the slur.
Hammomd was hitting out at the RMT who are in sole charge of hiring train drivers and only 5% are women
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but their are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
It's not unprecedented for the election "winners" to have negative publicity either. In 2005, Labour had a disastrous press in the weeks afterwards because they'd not won by as much as expected and had a very poor share of the vote, Blair was declared a dead man walking, and Brown immediately went on maneuveures...... but they still kept the lead in the polls for months afterwards, because, even when there's negative publicity, election winners always get a honeymoon. It is incredibly unusual, and very impressive on Labour's part, that there's been no honeymoon at all this time.
Oppositions going 20 points ahead within weeks of losing an election just does not happen, ever, no matter how bad the situation is for the government. Voters don't admit they got their decision wrong in an election that quickly, even if they eventually they change their minds a year or two later.
Again you ignore the fact that the Labour boost has already petered out and the unique circumstances of today. I love your notion that this is May's honeymoon period. I salute your loyalty to Mr Corbyn - this is excellent news for the tories.
The worst post-election polling for a newly-elected government in nearly 40 years is somehow "excellent news for the tories". If you say so....
If you keep on ignoring the trend..... at one time you understood how crap Corbyn was....
Oh and the 'excellent news for the Tories' is not the polling but the hubris of so many Labour supporters.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
We can be excused, I think.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
Am I crazy for wondering if there's value in going Lib Dems for most seats at the next election at 279/1?
If the next election is post Brexit (>60%) AND Brexit/economy is going badly (possible) ... Is it not possible people might look favourably on Uncle Vince? He probably beats TM or JC on the economy?
Lib Dems could perhaps stand on an EEA deal or something like that. This election IMO was too soon for anyone to change their mind on Brexit. I certainly expect Brexit to be a more pressing issue next time around...
Given volatility it's not complete crazy. But tying up money for maybe five years.
Probably as likely as Blair or Miliband returning to lead the Progressive Democrats to victory.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but their are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
It's not unprecedented for the election "winners" to have negative publicity either. In 2005, Labour had a disastrous press in the weeks afterwards because they'd not won by as much as expected and had a very poor share of the vote, Blair was declared a dead man walking, and Brown immediately went on maneuveures...... but they still kept the lead in the polls for months afterwards, because, even when there's negative publicity, election winners always get a honeymoon. It is incredibly unusual, and very impressive on Labour's part, that there's been no honeymoon at all this time.
Oppositions going 20 points ahead within weeks of losing an election just does not happen, ever, no matter how bad the situation is for the government. Voters don't admit they got their decision wrong in an election that quickly, even if they eventually they change their minds a year or two later.
Again you ignore the fact that the Labour boost has already petered out and the unique circumstances of today. I love your notion that this is May's honeymoon period. I salute your loyalty to Mr Corbyn - this is excellent news for the tories.
The worst post-election polling for a government in nearly 40 years is somehow "excellent news for the tories". If you say so....
As a highly partisan Tory, I'm ignoring all the polls that have Labour ahead
Just what Mrs May needs now - 'highly partisan' loyal Tories - oops....
Am I crazy for wondering if there's value in going Lib Dems for most seats at the next election at 279/1?
If the next election is post Brexit (>60%) AND Brexit/economy is going badly (possible) ... Is it not possible people might look favourably on Uncle Vince? He probably beats TM or JC on the economy?
Lib Dems could perhaps stand on an EEA deal or something like that. This election IMO was too soon for anyone to change their mind on Brexit. I certainly expect Brexit to be a more pressing issue next time around...
Given volatility it's not complete crazy. But tying up money for maybe five years.
Probably as likely as Blair or Miliband returning to lead the Progressive Democrats to victory.
Well I've gone for it. I'll live with tying up £4 for that long! I could imagine someone like Chuka defecting to Lib Dems perhaps if they started looking a good prospect...
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
What does Hammond think of a woman as Dr Who? The other day he was marvelling that modern technology meant women could even drive trains. What about a Tardis?
Of course he wasn't but you are happy to repeat the slur.
Hammomd was hitting out at the RMT who are in sole charge of hiring train drivers and only 5% are women
That's the spin anyway. Until this morning the line was that another minister said it.
A source close to Mr Hammond strongly denied that he made the sexist comment, insisting he would never even think in those terms. The Chancellor’s allies also said the phrase was uttered by another minister unfairly at the Cabinet meeting which wrongly caricatured his position.
It looks like the second Test is lost, my friends, so who do PBers think should be dropped for the next Test?
Personally, I'd start with the Chairman of Selectors.
One day we might actually work out that it is easier to make the odd change after winning a Test than following a morale sapping defeat.
You have to feel for Dawson. He never claimed to be anything other than a tidy off-spinner and a decent County number eight batsman. Whoever thought he was a solution to any of England's shortcomings should be made to refund the money of every England fan who visited either of the first two Tests.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Remind us of what the general election result which followed that immediate Opposition poll lead in 1979.
And yes, I know that history does not necessarily repeat itself. But that's all the more reason o be cautious about predictions at present.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
We can be excused, I think.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
M/C London - which is a pretty strong section of that seat has become another country. I think the Tories suffered the perfect storm of Brexit/high rents and gullible youth there. It may be some time before that changes.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
We can be excused, I think.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
Likewise Don Brind was doing the GOTV in Tooting rather than Battersea or Putney.
So it looks like the campaigns of all the parties were various shades of incompetent.
5/1 Labour in Hampstead though was a very tasty result.
Am I crazy for wondering if there's value in going Lib Dems for most seats at the next election at 279/1?
If the next election is post Brexit (>60%) AND Brexit/economy is going badly (possible) ... Is it not possible people might look favourably on Uncle Vince? He probably beats TM or JC on the economy?
Lib Dems could perhaps stand on an EEA deal or something like that. This election IMO was too soon for anyone to change their mind on Brexit. I certainly expect Brexit to be a more pressing issue next time around...
I think laying both the Tories and Labour at very small stakes is value, as that gives you a lot more "outs".
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Remind us of what the general election result which followed that immediate Opposition poll lead in 1979.
And yes, I know that history does not necessarily repeat itself. But that's all the more reason o be cautious about predictions at present.
Yes, indeed. And I've never predicted Labour are a shoo-in to win the next election. Polling years in advance can easily change.
But, since we're talking about the polling right now, I'm just confused by the claims that it's somehow bad for Labour, and good for the Tories, when historically this is the quickest turnaround in nearly 40 years. It means little, if anything, for the result of the next election, as 1979-83 shows, but taking the polling for what it is, it can't be somehow spun as good news for the Tories.
Am I crazy for wondering if there's value in going Lib Dems for most seats at the next election at 279/1?
If the next election is post Brexit (>60%) AND Brexit/economy is going badly (possible) ... Is it not possible people might look favourably on Uncle Vince? He probably beats TM or JC on the economy?
Lib Dems could perhaps stand on an EEA deal or something like that. This election IMO was too soon for anyone to change their mind on Brexit. I certainly expect Brexit to be a more pressing issue next time around...
I think laying both the Tories and Labour at very small stakes is value, as that gives you a lot more "outs".
Thanks I like that suggestion. Covers me for a tie and new parties and maybe some other outcome I haven't thought of...
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
What does Hammond think of a woman as Dr Who? The other day he was marvelling that modern technology meant women could even drive trains. What about a Tardis?
Of course he wasn't but you are happy to repeat the slur.
Hammomd was hitting out at the RMT who are in sole charge of hiring train drivers and only 5% are women
That's the spin anyway. Until this morning the line was that another minister said it.
A source close to Mr Hammond strongly denied that he made the sexist comment, insisting he would never even think in those terms. The Chancellor’s allies also said the phrase was uttered by another minister unfairly at the Cabinet meeting which wrongly caricatured his position.
It's a shame Labour are concentrating on this tittle-tattle rather than trying to help rail passengers. They may like to start by reading the Gibb report into Southern Rail's problems:
At the time of writing this the RMT and ASLEF leadership, supported currently by their members, the railway people in conductor and driver grades, are the primary cause for the system integrity to fail, by taking strike action in their dispute over Driver Only Operation, declining to work overtime and generally not supporting and undermining the system integrity.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
Remind us of what the general election result which followed that immediate Opposition poll lead in 1979.
And yes, I know that history does not necessarily repeat itself. But that's all the more reason o be cautious about predictions at present.
Yes, indeed. And I've never predicted Labour are a shoo-in to win the next election. Polling years in advance can easily change.
But, since we're talking about the polling right now, I'm just confused by the claims that it's somehow bad for Labour, and good for the Tories, when historically this is the quickest turnaround in nearly 40 years. It means little, if anything, for the result of the next election, as 1979-83 shows, but taking the polling for what it is, it can't be somehow spun as good news for the Tories.
There could have been a post election slump for Labour considering some may have voted tactically to prevent a landslide, but they seem to be holding up the 40%+ for now.
Future historians will probably look back at 2016 and 2017 with great interest. It is unprecedented for a country to abandon a highly advantageous geopolitical and economic position simply because it is experiencing a prolonged identity crisis.
Future historians will probably look back at 2016 and 2017 with great interest. It is unprecedented for a country to abandon a highly advantageous geopolitical and economic position simply because it is experiencing a prolonged identity crisis.
Also:
But for countries, as for people, life goes on after divorce. The EU and the UK will remain geographically close, and thus geopolitically dependent on one another. Ongoing issues relating to security, terrorism, and refugees will force both sides to work together; and trade will continue, even if it faces more hurdles.
It is thus in both sides’ interest not to inflict deep wounds, instigate confrontations, or embarrass and threaten the other side. Above all, issues relating to common UK-EU security should not be part of the negotiations. Both sides need to acknowledge their mutual dependence and be prepared to show generosity.
I don;t really care about the gender of Dr Who. What I do care about is the quality of the acting and the writing. If Chibnall can maintain or improve on the best of Moffat and Russell T davies it won't matter. His Torchwood foray a few years back was poor but he's earned another chance.
Off-topic, Federer's clinical dissection of Cilic was a masterclass. I know we always bleat on about Murray and Djokovic but we've been blessed to be in the Federer era, truly one of the legends of tennis and indeed sport.
As for polls now, wholly irrelevant. Is there going to be an election any time soon ? I think not, Let's see how May and co get through the next few months.
For anybody who is interested, the official announcement is out and, apparently, yes it *is* Jodie Whitaker. Which has the fangirls squeeing with much squee
What does Hammond think of a woman as Dr Who? The other day he was marvelling that modern technology meant women could even drive trains. What about a Tardis?
Of course he wasn't but you are happy to repeat the slur.
Hammomd was hitting out at the RMT who are in sole charge of hiring train drivers and only 5% are women
That's the spin anyway. Until this morning the line was that another minister said it.
A source close to Mr Hammond strongly denied that he made the sexist comment, insisting he would never even think in those terms. The Chancellor’s allies also said the phrase was uttered by another minister unfairly at the Cabinet meeting which wrongly caricatured his position.
It's a shame Labour are concentrating on this tittle-tattle rather than trying to help rail passengers. They may like to start by reading the Gibb report into Southern Rail's problems:
At the time of writing this the RMT and ASLEF leadership, supported currently by their members, the railway people in conductor and driver grades, are the primary cause for the system integrity to fail, by taking strike action in their dispute over Driver Only Operation, declining to work overtime and generally not supporting and undermining the system integrity.
Labour? What's Labour got to do with it? It is not Labour leaking from the Cabinet to dish Hammond's prospects of moving next door. This is blue on blue.
Edit: had to delete JJ's last line as Vanilla flubbed the quotes, which I'd not touched.
Labour? What's Labour got to do with it? It is not Labour leaking from the Cabinet to dish Hammond's prospects of moving next door. This is blue on blue.
Edit: had to delete JJ's last line as Vanilla flubbed the quotes, which I'd not touched.
That Labour may be wanting to divert attention from the primary cause of the most obvious problem on the rails atm. One they'd been making hay from (although they oddly haven't welcomed this report - can anyone think why?).
This is red on anyone who travels on Southern. You know, the many that Labour claim they want to be helping, wherein they're really supporting the few.
Apparently wiki's been overloaded as Whovians have been trying to find out what these 'women' things are, and what planet they come from in the Whoniverse.
Labour? What's Labour got to do with it? It is not Labour leaking from the Cabinet to dish Hammond's prospects of moving next door. This is blue on blue.
Edit: had to delete JJ's last line as Vanilla flubbed the quotes, which I'd not touched.
That Labour may be wanting to divert attention from the primary cause of the most obvious problem on the rails atm. One they'd been making hay from (although they oddly haven't welcomed this report - can anyone think why?).
This is red on anyone who travels on Southern. You know, the many that Labour claim they want to be helping, wherein they're really supporting the few.
Again, this is the next Tory leadership struggle and sod all to do with Labour, the railways or the new incarnation of the Doctor.
Yes but the direction of travel is moving against Labour already. It would be insignificant except you cannot ignore the level of media negativity against the Tories since the GE which has been exceptional and continues apace. Given the circumstances Labour ought to be 20 points ahead but with Corbyn in charge the surge seems to have ended. I'm unlikely to ever vote Labour but there are plenty of soft Tory voters who seem unwilling to move. If i was a Labour supporter that would have me very worried.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
We can be excused, I think.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
Likewise Don Brind was doing the GOTV in Tooting rather than Battersea or Putney.
So it looks like the campaigns of all the parties were various shades of incompetent.
5/1 Labour in Hampstead though was a very tasty result.
They were a shade of odds-on on the day but even that scarcely hinted at a 15K majority.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this is still the quickest an Opposition has moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
We can be excused, I think.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
M/C London - which is a pretty strong section of that seat has become another country. I think the Tories suffered the perfect storm of Brexit/high rents and gullible youth there. It may be some time before that changes.
Most of the Labour vote would have come from Kilburn. Maybe that's why the kids I spoke to were edgy. We were in the posher environs of South End Green. In Kilburn, we would probably have sensed the result more accurately.
Labour? What's Labour got to do with it? It is not Labour leaking from the Cabinet to dish Hammond's prospects of moving next door. This is blue on blue.
Edit: had to delete JJ's last line as Vanilla flubbed the quotes, which I'd not touched.
That Labour may be wanting to divert attention from the primary cause of the most obvious problem on the rails atm. One they'd been making hay from (although they oddly haven't welcomed this report - can anyone think why?).
This is red on anyone who travels on Southern. You know, the many that Labour claim they want to be helping, wherein they're really supporting the few.
Again, this is the next Tory leadership struggle and sod all to do with Labour, the railways or the new incarnation of the Doctor.
And I'm pointing out why Labour are desperately trying to take the line they are.
Still, I reckon we'll be back on the Labour leadership struggle in a few weeks.
So Labour support falls in both w/e polls against a background of negative publicity for the government which continues to ratchet up day by day. Methinks there's a message there for the media - and one or two on here. Indeed it's odd not to be featured on any of the thread headers.
On the other hand, modest though Labour's lead is, this as moved ahead in the polls after an election since 1979.
Even in the fateful 1992-97 Parliament, Labour only moved ahead in the polls around 5 months after election day.
.
I bet you were one of those looking at a majority of 150 in April.
Always good to hear from those who were expecting anything else in April. Especially with supporting links to their posts of that time.
Not many were predicting 150, Ish. Most of us had it around 75.
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I was consistently 100+ and had bets on 150 upwards.
Ouch.
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
I actually did well thanks to some shrewd seat specific tips on here - particularly for Labour in Wales. But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
We can be excused, I think.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
M/C London - which is a pretty strong section of that seat has become another country. I think the Tories suffered the perfect storm of Brexit/high rents and gullible youth there. It may be some time before that changes.
Most of the Labour vote would have come from Kilburn. Maybe that's why the kids I spoke to were edgy. We were in the posher environs of South End Green. In Kilburn, we would probably have sensed the result more accurately.
Such was the size of the Labour lead, I bet they led in every ward except Frognal.
Mr. Viewcode, has there ever been only a male companion in New Who? Could be wrong, but I believe the model has been a male Doctor, female companion, and occasionally another companion who might be male.
On gender: does this ever jump the other way? What would people think about a male Ripley in a new Alien(s) film?
[I only think demographics matter if they're integral to the character. As a womaniser, I'd say Bond's male. Similarly, Othello should be black, etc etc].
"As a womaniser..." I never saw you as a Yorkshire SeanT, Mr.D. Are all writers similarly afflicted ?
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
I am still on an earlier thread.It is simply impossible to keep up with the pace of change.I must comment that I found some excellent frozen fish in Iceland today,15 mackerel fillets for a tenner or you can mix and match with Rainbow Trout and Atlantic Cod Loin.£1.50 for a couple of mackerel fillets is a steal in terms of protein and omega-3.A few new potatoes fried in olive oil and some mushy fresh peas,£2.50 a head.Goodnight.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
I thought it was the same character and every 15 years or so, he'd had to that island of Cuba to have the gene therapy and change his appearance (and age).
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
I thought it was the same character and every 15 years or so, he'd had to that island of Cuba to have the gene therapy and change his appearance (and age).
I believe the canonical situation is that it is all one person, though '007' being the codename passed around would make a lot more sense at this point. Technically though the different actors all portray the same person.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
Nah, heard it elsewhere many times. It was a shit idea then too.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
The James Bond franchise should have been wound up years ago.
There is Ian Fleming's Bond, a dark and tormented character, and then there are .......very weak imitations.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
I am not sure that point will ever come. I remember when the BBC made Life on Mars and one of the aims of the programme was to show how backward and stone age were the views of the police in the 1970s. And yet the audience absolutely loved Gene Hunt. They revelled in his lack of 'political correctness' (for want of a better snappy phrase).
I think Bond will continue to have the same appeal.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
Nah, heard it elsewhere many times. It was a shit idea then too.
Makes sense to me... Why wouldn't there be gay men with secrets her majesty's secret service need to know?
But whilst public are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality I'm not sure they are ready for a man seducing another man in something like a Bond movie...
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
Nah, heard it elsewhere many times. It was a shit idea then too.
Makes sense to me... Why wouldn't there be gay men with secrets her majesty's secret service need to know?
But whilst public are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality I'm not sure they are ready for a man seducing another man in something like a Bond movie...
Being gay just isn't part of Bond's character.
It would be better to simply create a gay character who's a stone killer from scratch (though, no one can really beat Gus Fring from Breaking Bad).
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
Nah, heard it elsewhere many times. It was a shit idea then too.
Makes sense to me... Why wouldn't there be gay men with secrets her majesty's secret service need to know?
But whilst public are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality I'm not sure they are ready for a man seducing another man in something like a Bond movie...
And that's the point. If you want to make that sort of movie then go and make that sort of movie. But you don't need to kidnap an iconic figure on the way just for a bit of gratuitous SJW point making.
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
We must not forget that the "Bond" market is worldwide - not just Britain and the US. I am not sure the Japanese and the Chinese and the rest of Asia are ready for this yet. Ultimately, big bucks will win.
Coming back to the Elections. How come most politically astute people missed this swing ? I mean at constituency level. David Herdson excepted, at the last minute.
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
And that's the difference. They are a strictly commercial entity and will always follow the money. They've acted ruthlessly in the past when it comes to rights. I agree with you that the sensible route would be to continue running with a very successful brand.
That is markedly different to the BBC who have no box office accountability and are free to play social justice warrior games with a guaranteed income from the telly tax.
The rather depressing thing is that if the new Who is a ratings disaster it won't get attributed to poor acting or poor writing - it'll be the fault of us the viewers for being sexist.
Coming back to the Elections. How come most politically astute people missed this swing ? I mean at constituency level. David Herdson excepted, at the last minute.
Speaking for myself, it actually shows up the problems of canvassing in a non marginal. We didn't have complete data sets (these come from repeatedly canvassing the same houses - to account for absence etc), and as all canvassers, focused on our own figures. They were up, as was the majority locally in both seats I worked on. When someone politely says 'we're not voting for you' it isn't always easy to push 'then for whom?' - it is also not really the point of canvassing, which is to identify only your own supporters and waverers.
When I was in Test on Election Day I messaged Casino_Royale to say I didn't think we'd do it, based on knocking up - where some 'switchers' actually told us they'd not actually voted Tory after all; my conclusion was a bit of an understatement.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
I thought it was the same character and every 15 years or so, he'd had to that island of Cuba to have the gene therapy and change his appearance (and age).
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
Nah, heard it elsewhere many times. It was a shit idea then too.
Makes sense to me... Why wouldn't there be gay men with secrets her majesty's secret service need to know?
But whilst public are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality I'm not sure they are ready for a man seducing another man in something like a Bond movie...
Being gay just isn't part of Bond's character.
It would be better to simply create a gay character who's a stone killer from scratch (though, no one can really beat Gus Fring from Breaking Bad).
In Goldfinger (the book), Bond "cures" Pussy Galore of being gay, the reason she thought she was (by her own account) being that she had never met a real man before. Earlier in the book Bond cogitates about "pansies of both sexes" and concludes that he "pities them, but has no time for them." Truth to the books is not of course necessary or desirable, but if you want a gay superspy Bond is not an obvious candidate.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
Thanks. I feel that's a little disappointing.
Surely the continuity of the name is a giveaway? Unless MI5 is like a family I knew as a child which always had one specimen of the same breed of dog, always replaced on death, and always having the same name - Fido or whatever. Creepy.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
Thanks. I feel that's a little disappointing.
Surely the continuity of the name is a giveaway? Unless MI5 is like a family I knew as a child which always had one specimen of the same breed of dog, always replaced on death, and always having the same name - Fido or whatever. Creepy.
Guys, it's a profitable franchise, and a fantasy, to boot.
Expecting consistency, even internal, is not entirely reasonable.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
Thanks. I feel that's a little disappointing.
Surely the continuity of the name is a giveaway? Unless MI5 is like a family I knew as a child which always had one specimen of the same breed of dog, always replaced on death, and always having the same name - Fido or whatever. Creepy.
Tradition is everything. The character M is based on 'C', Mansfield Smith-Cumming, the first director of the SIS. Staff called him 'C'. A hundred years later, the head of SIS is still known as, and signs documents as, 'C'.
I always considered that 'James Bond' was both a pseudonym to protect people the gent knew before they joined, and a codename people 'in the know' would recognise.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
Thanks. I feel that's a little disappointing.
Surely the continuity of the name is a giveaway? Unless MI5 is like a family I knew as a child which always had one specimen of the same breed of dog, always replaced on death, and always having the same name - Fido or whatever. Creepy.
Guys, it's a profitable franchise, and a fantasy, to boot.
Expecting consistency, even internal, is not entirely reasonable.
This is PB. Expecting consistency or reason is not entirely reasonable ...
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
Personally I think that part of James Bond's character is that they are old-fashioned, and a key part of that has been old-fashioned womanising. Having said which, there may come a point where audiences will no longer tolerate that - in which case the character could potentially be compatible with being a woman.
A gay/bisexual James Bond... You heard it here first.
Nah, heard it elsewhere many times. It was a shit idea then too.
Makes sense to me... Why wouldn't there be gay men with secrets her majesty's secret service need to know?
But whilst public are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality I'm not sure they are ready for a man seducing another man in something like a Bond movie...
Being gay just isn't part of Bond's character.
It would be better to simply create a gay character who's a stone killer from scratch (though, no one can really beat Gus Fring from Breaking Bad).
In Goldfinger (the book), Bond "cures" Pussy Galore of being gay, the reason she thought she was (by her own account) being that she had never met a real man before. Earlier in the book Bond cogitates about "pansies of both sexes" and concludes that he "pities them, but has no time for them." Truth to the books is not of course necessary or desirable, but if you want a gay superspy Bond is not an obvious candidate.
Get with the times. He's obviously repressed...
If anyone watches it, Archer did a great parody of this, where the eponymous hero has to set up a honeypot, only to discover the target is a man...
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
Thanks. I feel that's a little disappointing.
Surely the continuity of the name is a giveaway? Unless MI5 is like a family I knew as a child which always had one specimen of the same breed of dog, always replaced on death, and always having the same name - Fido or whatever. Creepy.
Why's that creepy? It seems entirely rational to me, and emphasises that the dog must fit in with the family, and not the other way around.
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
Coming back to the Elections. How come most politically astute people missed this swing ? I mean at constituency level. David Herdson excepted, at the last minute.
Because its hard to guess which voters will turnout on the day? Survation guessed right this time but it's more of an art than a science.
Also many young voters probably won't be home answering the door when canvassers come round, so are invisible to the campaigns.
But if u ignored the polls and pundits it felt like May was going to lose her majority, but people want empirical data to back up such feelings.
IMHO, the producers of Dr. Who are just flogging a dead horse by now.
I wonder what this means for the next James Bond.
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
What is the official story behind the changing of James Bond's actor and the progressing of the years? Is '007' a licence granted to one agent after another, all trained up from an orphanage? (*) Or is it all meant to be the same agent and left deliberately woolly and unexplained?
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
It's the same person. George Lazenby planted the seeds of doubt in OHMSS when he said "This never happened to the other guy". But Tracy (Bond's wife in OHMSS) is referenced in four films by two different actors. And For Your Eyes Only opens at her grave.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
Thanks. I feel that's a little disappointing.
Surely the continuity of the name is a giveaway? Unless MI5 is like a family I knew as a child which always had one specimen of the same breed of dog, always replaced on death, and always having the same name - Fido or whatever. Creepy.
Why's that creepy? It seems entirely rational to me, and emphasises that the dog must fit in with the family, and not the other way around.
How do you reminisce about previous holders of the post? Perhaps they numbered them, like kings, Fido I, II, III etc.
Tradition is everything. The character M is based on 'C', Mansfield Smith-Cumming, the first director of the SIS. Staff called him 'C'. A hundred years later, the head of SIS is still known as, and signs documents as, 'C'.
I always considered that 'James Bond' was both a pseudonym to protect people the gent knew before they joined, and a codename people 'in the know' would recognise.
There was a story about Roger Moore, widely recounted when he died, of a small boy recognising him as James Bond at an airport and RM telling the boy he was travelling under an assumed name and begging him not to blow his cover.
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
Comments
I might struggle to find a relevant from the period, but I can send you a copy of my SPIN account for the period. Will that do?
[I believe OGH could do likewise, but he is of course on leave.]
I may be some time
Mr. Viewcode, has there ever been only a male companion in New Who? Could be wrong, but I believe the model has been a male Doctor, female companion, and occasionally another companion who might be male.
On gender: does this ever jump the other way? What would people think about a male Ripley in a new Alien(s) film?
[I only think demographics matter if they're integral to the character. As a womaniser, I'd say Bond's male. Similarly, Othello should be black, etc etc].
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4394478/iron-man-riri-williams-tony-stark/
If it's any consolation, I was out by similar margins on the 2015 GE.
If the next election is post Brexit (>60%) AND Brexit/economy is going badly (possible) ... Is it not possible people might look favourably on Uncle Vince? He probably beats TM or JC on the economy?
Lib Dems could perhaps stand on an EEA deal or something like that.
This election IMO was too soon for anyone to change their mind on Brexit. I certainly expect Brexit to be a more pressing issue next time around...
But overall understanding of what was going on in the country - absolutely terrible!
No, it didn't work.
Oh and the 'excellent news for the Tories' is not the polling but the hubris of so many Labour supporters.
The day before the election I was chatting with some enthusiastic young Labour activists in Hampstead. Despite their zeal, they were clearly uncertain about their chances in what was one of the most marginal seats in the country.
They romped home by 15,000. So if they didn't know (and I'm sure they didn't....)
Probably as likely as Blair or Miliband returning to lead the Progressive Democrats to victory.
I could imagine someone like Chuka defecting to Lib Dems perhaps if they started looking a good prospect...
A source close to Mr Hammond strongly denied that he made the sexist comment, insisting he would never even think in those terms. The Chancellor’s allies also said the phrase was uttered by another minister unfairly at the Cabinet meeting which wrongly caricatured his position.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4022819/chancellor-philip-hammond-slapped-down-by-theresa-may-after-saying-driving-trains-is-so-easy-that-even-a-woman-can-do-it/
And yes, I know that history does not necessarily repeat itself. But that's all the more reason o be cautious about predictions at present.
Mr. Viewcode, cheers for that answer.
So it looks like the campaigns of all the parties were various shades of incompetent.
5/1 Labour in Hampstead though was a very tasty result.
But, since we're talking about the polling right now, I'm just confused by the claims that it's somehow bad for Labour, and good for the Tories, when historically this is the quickest turnaround in nearly 40 years. It means little, if anything, for the result of the next election, as 1979-83 shows, but taking the polling for what it is, it can't be somehow spun as good news for the Tories.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/619795/chris-gibb-report-southern-rail.pdf Or perhaps not.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/united-kingdom-post-race-analysis-2017.html
Mid-season review will probably be up next week.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/2017/07/brexit-to-nowhere/
Future historians will probably look back at 2016 and 2017 with great interest. It is unprecedented for a country to abandon a highly advantageous geopolitical and economic position simply because it is experiencing a prolonged identity crisis.
The meninists cry wanking about it is very funny!
But for countries, as for people, life goes on after divorce. The EU and the UK will remain geographically close, and thus geopolitically dependent on one another. Ongoing issues relating to security, terrorism, and refugees will force both sides to work together; and trade will continue, even if it faces more hurdles.
It is thus in both sides’ interest not to inflict deep wounds, instigate confrontations, or embarrass and threaten the other side. Above all, issues relating to common UK-EU security should not be part of the negotiations. Both sides need to acknowledge their mutual dependence and be prepared to show generosity.
I don;t really care about the gender of Dr Who. What I do care about is the quality of the acting and the writing. If Chibnall can maintain or improve on the best of Moffat and Russell T davies it won't matter. His Torchwood foray a few years back was poor but he's earned another chance.
Off-topic, Federer's clinical dissection of Cilic was a masterclass. I know we always bleat on about Murray and Djokovic but we've been blessed to be in the Federer era, truly one of the legends of tennis and indeed sport.
As for polls now, wholly irrelevant. Is there going to be an election any time soon ? I think not, Let's see how May and co get through the next few months.
Labour? What's Labour got to do with it? It is not Labour leaking from the Cabinet to dish Hammond's prospects of moving next door. This is blue on blue.
Edit: had to delete JJ's last line as Vanilla flubbed the quotes, which I'd not touched.
This is red on anyone who travels on Southern. You know, the many that Labour claim they want to be helping, wherein they're really supporting the few.
*Absolutely Fucking Everyone* was doing GOTV for Labour in Tooting. It was a complete ambush. Like some sort of late-stage left-wing cancer.
I'm surprised they had anybody left to send to Hampstead or indeed anywhere else in the country!
Still, I reckon we'll be back on the Labour leadership struggle in a few weeks.
I never saw you as a Yorkshire SeanT, Mr.D. Are all writers similarly afflicted ?
I don't know, now, whether leads are cast for genuine artistic merit or in order to make a point about feminism. And I expect it's almost impossible to publicly question such a decision without being accused of sexism and misogyny, which worries me even more.
(FWIW - I think Doctor Who, an alien and a time Lord who can take any form, does give licence for any actor or actress to play the character.)
(*) Thought that wouldn't explain wen later films refer back to events in earlier films involving different actors.
But Skyfall clears it up for certain. You see the graves of the Bond parents and the backstory for those graves is given in M's eulogy in You Only Live Twice.
The fan-base have tried to move towards a 'code-name' solution for the whole thing but the truth is all cleared up in Skyfall. We aren't going to see two Bonds on the same screen "It wasn't like this in my day".
One Bond.
There is Ian Fleming's Bond, a dark and tormented character, and then there are .......very weak imitations.
I think Bond will continue to have the same appeal.
But whilst public are increasingly tolerant of homosexuality I'm not sure they are ready for a man seducing another man in something like a Bond movie...
It would be better to simply create a gay character who's a stone killer from scratch (though, no one can really beat Gus Fring from Breaking Bad).
Ulitimately, the rights to the James Bond character are owned by Eon Productions. They can and should do all they can to maximise their long term revenues from the character. If they means a gay or female Bond, that is their business.
However, and I might be wrong, I very much doubt that is in the long term commercial interests of Eon to have a Mrs Bond or a Queen Bond.
That is markedly different to the BBC who have no box office accountability and are free to play social justice warrior games with a guaranteed income from the telly tax.
The rather depressing thing is that if the new Who is a ratings disaster it won't get attributed to poor acting or poor writing - it'll be the fault of us the viewers for being sexist.
When I was in Test on Election Day I messaged Casino_Royale to say I didn't think we'd do it, based on knocking up - where some 'switchers' actually told us they'd not actually voted Tory after all; my conclusion was a bit of an understatement.
Expecting consistency, even internal, is not entirely reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Secret_Intelligence_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansfield_Smith-Cumming
I always considered that 'James Bond' was both a pseudonym to protect people the gent knew before they joined, and a codename people 'in the know' would recognise.
If anyone watches it, Archer did a great parody of this, where the eponymous hero has to set up a honeypot, only to discover the target is a man...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm93TAEgwdc
But that 10 minute long scene with Javier Bardem was brilliant.
Also many young voters probably won't be home answering the door when canvassers come round, so are invisible to the campaigns.
But if u ignored the polls and pundits it felt like May was going to lose her majority, but people want empirical data to back up such feelings.