David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance. The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
I wonder if he also takes that Miracle Mineral Solution :-)
I have heard Doctors tend to have quite short lives as a profession. No idea if it's true.
Not true,
Middle-class professionals such as doctors and accountants are outliving builders and cleaners by as much as eight years, according to official figures.
I think Sanders would struggle to win more than about 5 states if he's the nominee.
Just imagine what that would do to Trump's ego.
All five states would be thrown out of the Republic of Trump.
... Although the loss of California and New York would somewhat dent his MAGA aspirations.
CA is on the way out anyway by sound of things.
NY might be a problem, as his stupid tower is there,
He has a lot of stupid towers, but yes there's no way on earth he'd allow "his" city to leave the Union. I suspect he'd be much more ambivalent about California.
I think trying to link evil stuff like the QAnon stuff to people making forced choices in polls is a reach. What the New Hampshire Democrats are saying is that they really, really don't want Trump. As to Brexit, economic damage etc - framing a question on nationalism in economic terms is to miss the point.
For example - Most Socts Nats of my acquaintance will, if forced to choose (is a social discussion) between independence with worse economics vs remaining, would still choose independence. This is because they believe that Scottish people alone should decide the fate of Scotland - and that will in the *long run* be better for Scotland.
The SNP maybe but do not confuse that with the Scottish people, and of course handing Scotland over to Brussels and the euro opens a whole can of worms
You are wrong G, Malmesbury is correct and Boris and headbangers like HYFUD are making it a certainty, Scots will not be treated like colonists, the people are sovereign and Tories/unionists are making huge error the way they are treating us.
And of course there is the Panelbase results from yesterday
There are differing legal opinions on whether the Scottish Parliament currently has the power to hold a consultative referendum on independence without Westminster’s permission. If the UK government continues to refuse to give permission, do you think the Scottish Parliament should legislate to hold a referendum and then allow the courts to decide whether it can take place?
Yes 56% No 44%
What a joke - a company opinion poll about whether the Scottish Parliament should hold its own referendum outside of the law, when the SNP could in fact bring about a Scottish general election practically right away if it wanted, and if it did well enough there would have to be another indyref - one that was totally lawful and of which the result would be respected by both sides. They LOVE the whole "England Westminster won't let us do what we want" kick.
I didn't give the electoral registration officer my data so that the Scottish administration could use it to hold a wildcat referendum. Many Unionists would boycott. There would be obvious problems with legitimacy, as there were in Catalonia.
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
D'y'know, I'm quite sad to hear that. If you can't do the big long haul ones, then perhaps doing the littler ones, like a Mediterranean cruise? Or you can do a river cruise: I think Rhine cruises are still an option in 2020, or there's the Nile. Or would they be too logistically difficult for you given your greater health requirements?
My wife and I have sailed the seven seas to see the world and to fulfil our lifetime love of the sea and sailing. Nothing to do with socialising or politics. Sadly we have taken our last cruise as age and health issues takeover
D'y'know, I'm quite sad to hear that. If you can't do the big long haul ones, then perhaps doing the littler ones, like a Mediterranean cruise? Or you can do a river cruise: I think Rhine cruises are still an option in 2020, or there's the Nile. Or would they be too logistically difficult for you given your greater health requirements?
My nearest neighbours are 91 and 88. They have taken to doing the European river cruises. They love them.
I think Sanders would struggle to win more than about 5 states if he's the nominee.
Yep. But hey its a couple more than McGovern and at least the left have told the country what to think and haven't triangulated or become Clinton and have kept their integrity etc etc.
He'd probably still get around 45% of the national popular vote (60 million votes). But in a two-party FPTP election that doesn't cut the mustard.
I think Sanders would struggle to win more than about 5 states if he's the nominee.
Yep. But hey its a couple more than McGovern and at least the left have told the country what to think and haven't triangulated or become Clinton and have kept their integrity etc etc.
He'd probably still get around 45% of the national popular vote (60 million votes). But in a two-party FPTP election that doesn't cut the mustard.
He's much abler than Corbyn was, though without the faux mild geniality which so many people seem to like about Corbyn, but I would think he recognised that baggage was a major problem they had as a team, and he would not solve that problem as he has plenty of his own.
I think that's right about the baggage and his clear view of them - and having had a heart attack probably does give you pause for thought before plunging into such a demanding job. But it was a fundamental issue of the left - as I said a couple of years ago - that they didn't give serious thought to a successor without baggage who would do it well. They let it rest on the Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott trio, and when the time came to launch RLB most people had barely heard of her.
His memoirs will make interresting reading one day.
Watching Bernie rally, you could drop in Jezza and not notice any difference. It is a massive shopping list of give-aways interlaced with BILLLLLIONNNAIIRRRESSS BOOOOO.
He is now promising minimum wage for a teacher is $60k a year (that's 50% rise in normal starting salary). Be interesting to know how much that would cost alone.
SF And Greens will a get around a handful each but the majority of the remainder will go to FF or FG now.
Independents will maybe get a dozen or so.
SF did not put up enough candidates to get most seats even if they got most votes, so question is will FG or FF get most seats, still close between them
Mayor Peter's African American numbers are terrible.
The low turnout of African Americans in 2016 was instrumental in getting Trump elected.
Life chances for American black people have probably not improved quicker under any other president. Not that he necessarily deserves the credit, but it has.
@Casino_Royale is completely correct. There is no perfect voting system. All have their advantages and disadvantages. I like FPTP, but it does have it flaws. For example:
1. It doesn't allow bubbling up resentment to an issue to show up. If there had been PR in the UK, I have little doubt the UK would never have agreed to the Lisbon constitution. It's also likely that Euroscepticism would have been something that the Centre-Right party would have had to acknowledge much earlier.
2. It can lead - especially with fragmenting electorates - to extremely disproportionate results. In 2005, Labour got a good majority with 35% of the vote. That was... OK. But what if a party got a good majority with 25% of the vote? That bothers me.
FPTP says (along with many other good or bad things): you can vote for THIS person or THAT person, or almost surely throw your vote away. The question is whether this reduction to two pre-arranged options is justified by the consent manufactured by the mathematical fact that one is half of two.
Its not this or that, you're being arrogant and wrong.
You can vote for whomever you want to, but only if what you want is the most popular does your candidate win. That most popular doesn't have to be either A or B.
FPTP has a pretty poor track record IMO. Time to try something new.
Because you don't like its results or you don't like it philosophically?
I've supported FPTP even when it gives results I dislike.
So what? I’ve been against FPTP regardless of whether the result is in favour of my party. Anomalous large majorities certainly damaged Labour.
Reviewing the performance of our governments in the last 100 years, at most about 15 or 20 years were successful in meeting their goals. FPTP played a big part in that and in our national decline.
Time to try something else.
You know we had FPTP all the way through the period when we rose to be the first global superpower and the largest empire in the history of the world?
If you're going to blame it for our national failures, doesn't that mean you should also credit it for our successes?
On the other hand, I'm not sure FPTP has done India much good.
Biden is currently 28/1 but I'd be very surprised if he isn't around 5/1 at some point during the primary season (even if it's for a relatively short duration).
Mayor Peter's African American numbers are terrible.
The low turnout of African Americans in 2016 was instrumental in getting Trump elected.
Life chances for American black people have probably not improved quicker under any other president. Not that he necessarily deserves the credit, but it has.
Presidents responsible for emancipation? Desegregation? This is why conservatives struggle to win minority votes: completely tin-eared statements that show ignorance of even the most basic turning points of their history.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
I'm glad to see Joaquin Phoenix win an Oscar. He has played some brilliant roles in the last twenty years and I thought he should have won for his portrayal of Commodus. The Academy don't warm so much to nasty messed-up characters and he played it to deadly perfection. Walk the Line, You Were Never Really Here, The Master are all brilliant virtuoso performances. A great actor.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
I'm glad to see Joaquin Phoenix win an Oscar. He has played some brilliant roles in the last twenty years and I thought he should have won for his portrayal of Commodus. The Academy don't warm so much to nasty messed-up characters and he played it to deadly perfection. Walk the Line, You Were Never Really Here, The Master are all brilliant virtuoso performances. A great actor.
The best scene in Gladiator is in the deleted scenes - where he stands between the condemned and a firinng squad of archers, arms stretched, as he muses on whether to grant a pardon. I can only imagine it got cut because it wasn't entirely germane to the narrative but mostly because he showed up Russell Crowe....
I'm glad to see Joaquin Phoenix win an Oscar. He has played some brilliant roles in the last twenty years and I thought he should have won for his portrayal of Commodus. The Academy don't warm so much to nasty messed-up characters and he played it to deadly perfection. Walk the Line, You Were Never Really Here, The Master are all brilliant virtuoso performances. A great actor.
The best scene in Gladiator is in the deleted scenes - where he stands between the condemned and a firinng squad of archers, arms stretched, as he muses on whether to grant a pardon. I can only imagine it got cut because it wasn't entirely germane to the narrative but mostly because he showed up Russell Crowe....
I am not usually on at this time, was up making hot chocolate for the missus
Is she solidly on the mend malcy?
Definitely getting better but long way to go , lost a lot of weight and lungs still not great. Will be a long recovery but hopefully will get back to 100%.
I am not usually on at this time, was up making hot chocolate for the missus
Is she solidly on the mend malcy?
Definitely getting better but long way to go , lost a lot of weight and lungs still not great. Will be a long recovery but hopefully will get back to 100%.
I am not usually on at this time, was up making hot chocolate for the missus
Is she solidly on the mend malcy?
Definitely getting better but long way to go , lost a lot of weight and lungs still not great. Will be a long recovery but hopefully will get back to 100%.
Best of, Malc. The really good moment will come when she and you look back and say; couldn't have done this six or whatever months ago. And 'this' may be a long walk, but equally it may be something quite small; easily rolling over in bed was an example for us!
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
SF And Greens will a get around a handful each but the majority of the remainder will go to FF or FG now.
Independents will maybe get a dozen or so.
Just reflecting on what this will do to Boris chances of getting the sort of deal he wants with the EU. Can't see it being to his advantage, whether Sinn Fein are in Government, or the core of the Opposition.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
And why couldn't one of those planes have just dropped a message? The story didn't really hang together but I still liked it.
he stands between the condemned and a firinng squad of archers
AAAAAAARGH!
You don’t ‘fire’ arrows, you ‘loose’ or ‘shoot’ them.
So you want to make up the term "loosing squad" or "shooting squad"? Too early in the morning for that level of creativity....
It would be ‘execution squad.’
A "firing squad with archers" might offend your sense of proper terminology when loosing some arrows, but an "execution squad" doesn't convey much as to the means of that execution....
(You do have a point in that the command given in the film Gladiator is "fire" - rather than "loose!" or "notch!")
Morning, malcolm. Modesty forbids me from mentioning I tipped Parasite for the Oscar.
I wish I had seen that Nigel, I presume it was a good price.
4-1 from memory?
Bit less than that as I only remembered to bet when someone reminded us yesterday, and it had started to shorten. I too was waiting for tyson‘s annual tips....
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
And why couldn't one of those planes have just dropped a message? The story didn't really hang together but I still liked it.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
I didn't find the narrative of 1917 plausible. But I still enjoyed it way more than the narrative of Parasite.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
Nigel Farage was worried about the plants being wrong. I've not seen the film yet but you do worry if the audience is nit-picking the scenery, is nothing very interesting happening? It sounds like a technically impressive and important film but one where the McGuffin is not compelling and sounds a bit like Saving Private Ryan, and not as well shot as Dunkirk. But I dare say I'll buy the DVD which is how we Luddites without Netflix watch films, assuming we've also got no friends to go to the pictures with, and are not important enough to fly round the world watching films on the back of the seat in front.
I suspect that one reason people have gone off awards ceremonies is that rather than being about recognising outstanding technical or professional skill, with the stories to match, they’re now all about pompous political grandstanding by hypocritical actors.
No-one likes to be lectured or preached at, so like for Jehovah’s Witness the door is slammed in the face.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
And why couldn't one of those planes have just dropped a message? The story didn't really hang together but I still liked it.
If theyd sent three guys not two theyd have saved a lot of lives as well.
It was a fine movie, but the single shot approach makes it seem more impressive than it is.
I’m guessing most Academy members didn’t read this interview:
https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/bong-joon-ho-parasite.html ... I ask what he thinks of the fact that no Korean film has ever been nominated for an Oscar despite the country’s outsize influence on cinema in the past two decades. “It’s a little strange, but it’s not a big deal,” he says, shrugging. “The Oscars are not an international film festival. They’re very local.”
David Copperfield on the other hand put me in the same mind as Little Women (although less cohesive) - whatever its merits the story itself was just really boring. I had no idea when we might be approaching the end.
Not sure. It has taken me by surprise. Normally Roger tells us who will win, and it is all long odds-on favourites except for the one he slips in at a double-figure price.
Who can forget his Ex Machina tip......
@MarqueeMark's missus was worth a listen too. I got as far as doubting 1917 on the grounds there were no Americans but that reasoning does not lead immediately to Parasite.
The Good Lady is quite assiduous at watching the BAFTA DVDs that get sent out (with the exception this year of the huge number of documentaries where she didn't get through them and so (unusually for BAFTA members I'd say) felt she couldn't vote.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
A quarrel I had with 1917's scene-setting was that where the hero was washed along in a fast flowing river. I suppose there might be a mill-race or something like that but where in that area does one find a fast-flowing river. The area's quite flat.
That bit was filmed along the River Tees. Not the same landscape as northern France.
David Hockney has revealed he has no regrets about his five-decade nicotine addiction and will continue smoking as an act of defiance. The 82-year-old British artist told The Sunday Times Magazine that three medics who have advised him to kick the habit have now passed away before him.
He said: 'I've had three doctors in the past 40 or so years. They all told me to give up smoking and now they’re all dead.'
I wonder if he also takes that Miracle Mineral Solution :-)
I have heard Doctors tend to have quite short lives as a profession. No idea if it's true.
Last night responding to a rather unkind quip from Tyson about our love of cruises I did say my wife and I have sailed the seven seas due to our love of seeing the world but also our lifetime passion for the sea and sailing. We went to the Artic (twice), Antarctic, South Georgia and the Falklands, sailed from Vancouver to Beijing (on Diamond Princess currently in quarantine in Japan) via Alaska, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the South China sea, several cruises to Norway, the Baltic, Iceland (twice) and Greenland. Furthermore several cruises in both the eastern and western med and the Canaries, and most recently transatlantic to Canada, New England and New York
As my wife is now 80, and neither of us enjoy flying, we have made the decision not to consider any further cruises as there are literally few places in the world we are interested in visiting. We are due to fly to Vancouver to visit or eldest son in May but we count ourselves so fortunate that we have enjoyed so many experiences and completed so much on most peoples 'bucket lists'
One of the features of PB is the kindness of posters across the political divide and I would like to thank all the posters who made such kind comments and suggestions following my post
I suspect that one reason people have gone off awards ceremonies is that rather than being about recognising outstanding technical or professional skill, with the stories to match, they’re now all about pompous political grandstanding by hypocritical actors.
No-one likes to be lectured or preached at, so like for Jehovah’s Witness the door is slammed in the face.
Have people gone off award ceremonies?
Acceptance speeches have always been an entertaining mix of drunken stream of thought.
While I disagree about some of the particular choices, such is the nature of art, it is rare for a truly poor film to get a BAFTA or Oscar.
Our cultural service industries are some of our most successful, best not to rubbish them. We see increasing globalisation too, in the first Korean winner
SF 177% of the quota in Dublin NW. Again only the one candidate.
Forgive my ignorance of the voting system, but why would they not stand enough candidates?
Can the vote be split by too many standing, so that none end up elected? Is there a massive deposit per candidate? Could they not find enough candidates? Something on spending limits?
Under STV the optimum is generally to put up one more candidate than you expect to get elected. Transfers between candidates of the same party are never ‘perfect’, as not everyone follows a party slate and there are always voters who don’t number all of their preferences. So putting up a full slate of candidates risks losing stray votes during eliminations.
At least it comes down to the voters. We can only look on in envy.
Still, eventually the penny will drop about the piss-poor nature of FPTP. But not before it destroys the UK and USA entirely, possible taking the West with them.
Not sure if this has been posted, but the comments underneath from RLB fans are jaw dropping. The consensus appears to be that they won't put down a second preference, because second preferences are helping RLBs opponents.
If we ever do have PR, then it's going to need one hell of an education campaign.
Comments
NY might be a problem, as his stupid tower is there,
Middle-class professionals such as doctors and accountants are outliving builders and cleaners by as much as eight years, according to official figures.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567252/Why-accountants-live-longer-than-builders.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51432660
https://twitter.com/RTEdublinWEST/status/1226552644489142274?s=20
Although domestic matters far outweighed Brexit among voters.....
https://twitter.com/AEHALL1983/status/1226602413383208960?s=20
No respecters of position, these Irish:
https://twitter.com/SiobhanFenton/status/1226653698199375879?s=20
I think that's right about the baggage and his clear view of them - and having had a heart attack probably does give you pause for thought before plunging into such a demanding job. But it was a fundamental issue of the left - as I said a couple of years ago - that they didn't give serious thought to a successor without baggage who would do it well. They let it rest on the Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott trio, and when the time came to launch RLB most people had barely heard of her.
His memoirs will make interresting reading one day.
Incidentally threre's a bus, the Z2, which goes to and from Canning Town to Amazon Tilbury in the morning and evening.
https://www.ensignbus.com/route-z2.html
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1226658580239130626?s=20
He is now promising minimum wage for a teacher is $60k a year (that's 50% rise in normal starting salary). Be interesting to know how much that would cost alone.
Independents will maybe get a dozen or so.
Yes and I bet SF over 17.5 seats when the betting opened a few weeks ago.
I also tipped @Pulpstar a few in Kildare North, going well so far.
Michael Martin said earlier he wasn't ruling anything out.
I also suspect, as a corollary, that back in early 2016, evangelical Christians preferred Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz to Donald Trump.
@Casino_Royale is completely correct. There is no perfect voting system. All have their advantages and disadvantages. I like FPTP, but it does have it flaws. For example:
1. It doesn't allow bubbling up resentment to an issue to show up. If there had been PR in the UK, I have little doubt the UK would never have agreed to the Lisbon constitution. It's also likely that Euroscepticism would have been something that the Centre-Right party would have had to acknowledge much earlier.
2. It can lead - especially with fragmenting electorates - to extremely disproportionate results. In 2005, Labour got a good majority with 35% of the vote. That was... OK. But what if a party got a good majority with 25% of the vote? That bothers me.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128161111
Biden is currently 28/1 but I'd be very surprised if he isn't around 5/1 at some point during the primary season (even if it's for a relatively short duration).
Modesty forbids me from mentioning I tipped Parasite for the Oscar.
She did end up voting in BAFTA for Sam Mendes and 1917. Some of her collagues were big fans of Parasite, but she diddn't "get it". (I wasn't a great fan either.)
She was a big fan of The Two Popes as well, so voted for Joanthan Pryce as best actor and Sir Anthony Hopkins for best supporting.
The acting votes where she agreed with the Oscars were for best and supporting actress - but she did "get" most of the technicals - cinematography (yay for Dartmouth's own Roger Deakins!), hair and make up, adapted sceenplay, best song, best production design, sound and editing.
You don’t ‘fire’ arrows, you ‘loose’ or ‘shoot’ them.
Can't see it being to his advantage, whether Sinn Fein are in Government, or the core of the Opposition.
Rather chilly. Still stormy but not as bad as yesterday.
(You do have a point in that the command given in the film Gladiator is "fire" - rather than "loose!" or "notch!")
I too was waiting for tyson‘s annual tips....
Here is Nige talking to the Sun in his guise as Great War buff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXAy_AEPZrU
Y’know, just in case the French kick off again.
No-one likes to be lectured or preached at, so like for Jehovah’s Witness the door is slammed in the face.
'Notch' would just mean nocking an arrow to the bowstring rather than loosing it.
https://twitter.com/lucidtalk/status/1225043867818450952?s=21
https://twitter.com/andrew_adonis/status/1226769659090915328?s=21
It was a fine movie, but the single shot approach makes it seem more impressive than it is.
He has his opinions, yes, but they’re about the films and actors and he knows his subject.
You don’t always have to agree with him but his reviews and insights are fascinating, revealing and useful.
We need a bit more Kermode and a lot less Phoenix in our awards ceremonies.
https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/bong-joon-ho-parasite.html
... I ask what he thinks of the fact that no Korean film has ever been nominated for an Oscar despite the country’s outsize influence on cinema in the past two decades. “It’s a little strange, but it’s not a big deal,” he says, shrugging. “The Oscars are not an international film festival. They’re very local.”
I’m now not so much underwater on him as in a submersible somewhere near the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Gulp.
As my wife is now 80, and neither of us enjoy flying, we have made the decision not to consider any further cruises as there are literally few places in the world we are interested in visiting. We are due to fly to Vancouver to visit or eldest son in May but we count ourselves so fortunate that we have enjoyed so many experiences and completed so much on most peoples 'bucket lists'
One of the features of PB is the kindness of posters across the political divide and I would like to thank all the posters who made such kind comments and suggestions following my post
Acceptance speeches have always been an entertaining mix of drunken stream of thought.
While I disagree about some of the particular choices, such is the nature of art, it is rare for a truly poor film to get a BAFTA or Oscar.
Our cultural service industries are some of our most successful, best not to rubbish them. We see increasing globalisation too, in the first Korean winner
Still, eventually the penny will drop about the piss-poor nature of FPTP. But not before it destroys the UK and USA entirely, possible taking the West with them.
Not sure if this has been posted, but the comments underneath from RLB fans are jaw dropping. The consensus appears to be that they won't put down a second preference, because second preferences are helping RLBs opponents.
If we ever do have PR, then it's going to need one hell of an education campaign.