I would be far more interested if the Telegraph would look into the many allegations of corruption and cronyism in the Tory Party but alas, silence. Why?
So basically you are only interested if it 's a tory involved - honest at least.
I think the point was perhaps that allegations in one direction would garner more interest if the paper also covered allegations in the other direction, as it would mean it was interested in exposing corruption, not advancing a partisan position.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
It's about values.
Or about covering gaps in substance with symbols.
Voters need to know you value the same things they do before they'll vote for you.
Quite. And it is why I cannot vote Tory. The current Tory party does not value integrity. It does not value honesty. It values doing favours for friends over getting the best person for the job. It values lies over being honest with the electorate. It values the already rich over young entrepreneurs trying to build a business.
You need to look at the beams in the eyes of the party you support before criticising the motes in other parties.
With respect, I can critique whatever I like and will continue to do so.
I have criticised aspects of the present day Tory party, including Boris, his chumocracy, his attempted proroguing of parliament in 2019, the IMB, and his appointments to the Lords. I have said I don't think he's up to the job of being PM, and I think there are others that would do better, and I have said he's damaged the Conservative brand.
I am able to do all of that. And I am also able to critique the failings of the Labour Party as well. So you don't get to "call me out" on that. Not a bit of it.
It might have escaped your attention but if Labour were a more credible and competitive opposition then it would be able to exert more pressure and influence on the Government to the benefit of us all.
That starts with showing the crucial swing voters that it shares their values. So less preaching and more listening please.
Barrie, Barrie, Barrie, don't look at what the actual government in actual charge of the actual UK and yer actual Brexit did, just think about what the SNP would have done. Not in Wangland of course but still, it should make you think!
I would be far more interested if the Telegraph would look into the many allegations of corruption and cronyism in the Tory Party but alas, silence. Why?
So basically you are only interested if it 's a tory involved - honest at least.
They should look into both sides, clearly this is very disappointing if true. But Khan says it's been properly done which would pass as a Tory excuse.
Thousands of students will be able to study and do work placements across the world through a brand new scheme that replaces the UK’s participation in Erasmus+.
The Turing scheme will be backed by over £100 million, providing funding for around 35,000 students in universities, colleges and schools to go on placements and exchanges overseas, starting in September 2021.
The new scheme will also target students from disadvantaged backgrounds and areas which did not previously have many students benefiting from Erasmus+, making life-changing opportunities accessible to everyone across the country.
Thats about double the number of UK students who participated in Erasmus+
Although coronavirus is now affecting student mobility, figures from before the pandemic showed that about half of UK university students who studied abroad did so through Erasmus. In 2017, 16,561 UK students participated in Erasmus, while 31,727 EU nationals came to the UK.
They stupidly thought they could triple the price to us and Boris would still pay, because the alternative was for Twitter to get really cross with him....
- Oxford virus will be approved in days, if not hours.
- A big reshuffle is coming, much sooner than expected.
- Sajid Javid to come back to a significant job.
Seems a bit pointless for Javid to resign on a matter of principle then slink back like that. Be funny if he came back as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the job Rishi had under Javid.
But a reshuffle is always a welcome event for some interest. Often a bit disappointing though, as the big names remain in situ.
With Cummings gone, the coast is clear for his return. He may even get to appoint his own advisers.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
Barrie, Barrie, Barrie, don't look at what the actual government in actual charge of the actual UK and yer actual Brexit did, just think about what the SNP would have done. Not in Wangland of course but still, it should make you think!
I'm sure their maximalist position would have gone down a treat during the negotiations.
Interesting though, because it shows the perils of using a culturally totemic but economically insignificant sector in such a way. Fishing was used in the negotiations both as a Falklands-style nationalist propaganda tool for the public, but also as a way of convincing Brussels that Britain might act, in economic rather than cultural terms, irrationally, if it didn't get its way. If you're going to use an emotive sector as a totem like that, you're going to get a bit of trouble if you don't secure its total support.
- Oxford virus will be approved in days, if not hours.
- A big reshuffle is coming, much sooner than expected.
- Sajid Javid to come back to a significant job.
Seems a bit pointless for Javid to resign on a matter of principle then slink back like that. Be funny if he came back as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the job Rishi had under Javid.
But a reshuffle is always a welcome event for some interest. Often a bit disappointing though, as the big names remain in situ.
With Cummings gone, the coast is clear for his return. He may even get to appoint his own advisers.
So Javid buys into the delusion that the things Cummings did or forced did not have Boris's approval or sanction, and therefore the problem was Cummings and not Boris? And I thought he was meant to be one of the smart ones.
Barrie, Barrie, Barrie, don't look at what the actual government in actual charge of the actual UK and yer actual Brexit did, just think about what the SNP would have done. Not in Wangland of course but still, it should make you think!
- Oxford virus will be approved in days, if not hours.
- A big reshuffle is coming, much sooner than expected.
- Sajid Javid to come back to a significant job.
Seems a bit pointless for Javid to resign on a matter of principle then slink back like that. Be funny if he came back as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the job Rishi had under Javid.
But a reshuffle is always a welcome event for some interest. Often a bit disappointing though, as the big names remain in situ.
With Cummings gone, the coast is clear for his return. He may even get to appoint his own advisers.
So Javid buys into the delusion that the things Cummings did or forced did not have Boris's approval or sanction, and therefore the problem was Cummings and not Boris? And I thought he was meant to be one of the smart ones.
What he believes and what he is willing to tolerate for his career are likely different things, even taking into account his resignation on principle.
The deal is getting about as much UK Parliamentary scrutiny as most EU directives did before they were transposed into UK law. In fact more than most.
That is utter twaddle. For a period as a government lawyer I was involved in the scrutinising of EU Directives and both inside government and in Parliament they got much more scrutiny than this deal.
A review of the agreement every 5 years is baked in, just as long as we have between GEs, so if there are big issues with it on either side then they can be addressed in 2025.
As for the trench warfare idea - no. This won't be the end of UK-EU disputes, discussions or initiatives (those will never end as we are very close neighbours will different ways of doing things) but, aside from the irreconcilables on both sides, the war is over.
"War".
Why on earth do you think that, if those who were on the losing side of a referendum won by a vastly bigger margin than this one, did not give up, those on the losing side this time will? Or should?
My children felt dismayed by the Brexit referendum, have been shafted by the government's response to Covid and see little hope of getting any of the things older generations have taken for granted - a secure good job, a pension, savings, the chance to buy a home. They vote. They're not going to assume that they do not have a right to change the world we leave them to suit them better. And nor should they.
Dial down the invective and righteous indignation please.
You're at your least interesting in that mode.
I have no idea why you think this is invective and righteous indignation Casino. It seems a fairly fair representation of the way many young people feel.
Politicians who fail to listen to those views and chose to dismiss them instead are in for a difficult ride with the young.
I don't take kindly to "why on earth" and similar phrases used to emotionally vent at me publicly at my expense, particularly from someone I know personally and socially.
Non-sequitur on the latter point. I have never argued for dismissing the views of young people or their concerns, and indeed I've posted my own suggestions on that.
I am aware there are no final victories in politics, but the internecine wars of the last five years are over - finished. Done.
That doesn't mean there won't be a debate over what comes next.
You state with some certainty that certain arguments are done. I am telling you that my children's generation are angry - very angry - about what has happened. They are not done - by any means - and those who think that they are are being complacent.
One thing the last few years has taught me - and the last year in particular - is to listen far more to my children and their views and experience and that of their friends, especially when they don't coincide with my own, because they have a stake in this country and will be living here long after I am gone.
If you think "why on earth" is invective - well I smile at that. I can do invective. I have yet to do it on PB and never will because it is pointless, as well as rude.
But let me assure you that if I did you'd be longing for the day when a reply to one of your posts only contained such a phrase.
BTW I sent you a personal VM which I hope you got.
I have children of my own, thank you very much.
You've simply (and disrespectfully) seen me as an emblem of a "Leaver" and a "Tory" this evening and have chosen to attack me accordingly.
I won't be checking my messages for a while now. Too angry.
You are a proud Tory and a proud Leaver. You write some very good posts and have written some very thoughtful leaders. I enjoy debating with you. So not sure quite why you are taking such umbrage at someone disagreeing with you.
Ah well. C'est la vie, as someone must once have said.
The deal is getting about as much UK Parliamentary scrutiny as most EU directives did before they were transposed into UK law. In fact more than most.
That is utter twaddle. For a period as a government lawyer I was involved in the scrutinising of EU Directives and both inside government and in Parliament they got much more scrutiny than this deal.
A review of the agreement every 5 years is baked in, just as long as we have between GEs, so if there are big issues with it on either side then they can be addressed in 2025.
As for the trench warfare idea - no. This won't be the end of UK-EU disputes, discussions or initiatives (those will never end as we are very close neighbours will different ways of doing things) but, aside from the irreconcilables on both sides, the war is over.
"War".
Why on earth do you think that, if those who were on the losing side of a referendum won by a vastly bigger margin than this one, did not give up, those on the losing side this time will? Or should?
My children felt dismayed by the Brexit referendum, have been shafted by the government's response to Covid and see little hope of getting any of the things older generations have taken for granted - a secure good job, a pension, savings, the chance to buy a home. They vote. They're not going to assume that they do not have a right to change the world we leave them to suit them better. And nor should they.
Dial down the invective and righteous indignation please.
You're at your least interesting in that mode.
I have no idea why you think this is invective and righteous indignation Casino. It seems a fairly fair representation of the way many young people feel.
Politicians who fail to listen to those views and chose to dismiss them instead are in for a difficult ride with the young.
I don't take kindly to "why on earth" and similar phrases used to emotionally vent at me publicly at my expense, particularly from someone I know personally and socially.
Non-sequitur on the latter point. I have never argued for dismissing the views of young people or their concerns, and indeed I've posted my own suggestions on that.
I am aware there are no final victories in politics, but the internecine wars of the last five years are over - finished. Done.
That doesn't mean there won't be a debate over what comes next.
You state with some certainty that certain arguments are done. I am telling you that my children's generation are angry - very angry - about what has happened. They are not done - by any means - and those who think that they are are being complacent.
One thing the last few years has taught me - and the last year in particular - is to listen far more to my children and their views and experience and that of their friends, especially when they don't coincide with my own, because they have a stake in this country and will be living here long after I am gone.
If you think "why on earth" is invective - well I smile at that. I can do invective. I have yet to do it on PB and never will because it is pointless, as well as rude.
But let me assure you that if I did you'd be longing for the day when a reply to one of your posts only contained such a phrase.
BTW I sent you a personal VM which I hope you got.
I have children of my own, thank you very much.
You've simply (and disrespectfully) seen me as an emblem of a "Leaver" and a "Tory" this evening and have chosen to attack me accordingly.
I won't be checking my messages for a while now. Too angry.
You are a proud Tory and a proud Leaver. You write some very good posts and have written some very thoughtful leaders. I enjoy debating with you. So not sure quite why you are taking such umbrage at someone disagreeing with you.
Ah well. C'est la vie, as someone must once have said.
Have a good evening.
What a shame for it to end like this, I was really enjoying the debate!
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
Here we need to differentiate between the old left and the modern left. This is what many on the modern Labour left say, but their actions and freak outs reveal otherwise. Great British heroes like Churchill need to be torn down as they were supposedly bad people, the Proms needs to be overhauled as it is too "white" (and therefore ghastly), Brexit is appalling "English nationalism" (and therefore worse as being English is ghastly - the Welsh can be excused), there's no such thing as native Brits because we are all immigrants if you go far enough back (unlike native Americans or Australians), preferring the English language to be spoken around you in your English home town is racist (unlike Welsh, Gaelic or Irish which is cultural heritage) etc etc.
I am a Labour member and I can tell you with confidence 99% of us do not agree at all with this and I don't recognise this characterisation of Labour members.
I think @Midlander is engaging in a little bit of stawmanism. Not that we're not all guilty of it from time-to-time, of course.
Barrie, Barrie, Barrie, don't look at what the actual government in actual charge of the actual UK and yer actual Brexit did, just think about what the SNP would have done. Not in Wangland of course but still, it should make you think!
I'm sure their maximalist position would have gone down a treat during the negotiations.
Hey, it's winner's Brexit: negotiations, deal, 1200 page document, the whole caboodle. Can't Tories take ownership of anything?
Just pointing out that their position was even more divergent than HMGs from the EU's opening gambit. In the article they say they want to ban all non-British ships from the territorial waters. The EU would never have accepted that.
I must say I have seen quite a few politicians decide to try to stop things like mobile phone masts on health grounds 'just in case'. I don't think it would be hard to fine some non-LDs doing the same thing on 5G, not that that makes it ok.
- Oxford virus will be approved in days, if not hours.
- A big reshuffle is coming, much sooner than expected.
- Sajid Javid to come back to a significant job.
If the Oxford vaccine is approved it will be some end to the year for Boris
Indeed, that was the one he personally invented.
Shortly after his morning stroll across the Thames? 🤣🤣
Indeed, I am also told I should be particularly impressed by the Prime Minister's new clothes, of the finest silk. However, they just look like ill fitting, off the peg suits from Burton to me.
I'm sad for them, however, they were always going to get sold down the river for everything else we've got in the deal. Frankly we've got third country status in the deal for agricultural produce which is a far bigger win for the nation (Scotland included).
"The moment the modern world went wrong Jonathan Sumption
The Paris Peace Conference of 1919-20 was where the modern world went wrong. The consequences of France’s vindictive determination to marginalise Germany are well known, and were denounced at the time by John Maynard Keynes in one of the most biting political pamphlets ever written. It took 30 years to undo its effects."
I must say I have seen quite a few politicians decide to try to stop things like mobile phone masts on health grounds 'just in case'. I don't think it would be hard to fine some non-LDs doing the same thing on 5G, not that that makes it ok.
I have sat in many planning meetings where councillors, of all parties but conservatives more than most, have voted against mast proposals faced with residents lobbying about all manner of concerns, most commonly the supposed damaging effects of the radiation particularly on children.
Thousands of students will be able to study and do work placements across the world through a brand new scheme that replaces the UK’s participation in Erasmus+.
The Turing scheme will be backed by over £100 million, providing funding for around 35,000 students in universities, colleges and schools to go on placements and exchanges overseas, starting in September 2021.
The new scheme will also target students from disadvantaged backgrounds and areas which did not previously have many students benefiting from Erasmus+, making life-changing opportunities accessible to everyone across the country.
Thats about double the number of UK students who participated in Erasmus+
Although coronavirus is now affecting student mobility, figures from before the pandemic showed that about half of UK university students who studied abroad did so through Erasmus. In 2017, 16,561 UK students participated in Erasmus, while 31,727 EU nationals came to the UK.
This sounds like a clever and commendable evolution of Erasmus, which - in toto - was tilted to the benefit of EU students who wanted to come to good, English-speaking universities in the UK; and which cost the UK taxpayer more than was gained.
That's about £3000 per student... What does that need to cover? I don't know. Notice, though, that it doesn't cover the gap between home and overseas fees at a UK University. The small print is really going to matter, as always.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did. Financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings and a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded - and that was a British script. The many similar examples are well-known throughout the industry.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
If that's true then it would be absolutely brilliant. Could be exactly the tonic we need to start getting over this virus shit. Brexit deal, vaccinations and an end to lockdowns. 2021 could be a great year, the shackles could finally come off.
If that's true then it would be absolutely brilliant. Could be exactly the tonic we need to start getting over this virus shit. Brexit deal, vaccinations and an end to lockdowns. 2021 could be a great year, the shackles could finally come off.
Sadly we will still be in a hole and previous experiences show the Tories do a very poor job at managing an economy in crisis. See 2010 onwards
Saw this posted today on the FTTP strategy, does look like FTTP is being taken seriously as the majority of rollout and outside in is a much better strategy than the FTTC rollout.
Dovetailing with commercial rollouts (like in my case) makes a lot of sense.
Maybe we will have got decent FTTP coverage by 2024.
It allows for Brexit but it also for closer alignment in the future if we so desire.
I think the deal has ended Rejoin for a generation, and I mean a proper generation, not one of those pissant Scottish generations.
I tend to agree with that view. If it happens at all, any serious push to rejoin would be unlikely to succeed before the mid- 2030s. Our present position is perhaps akin to where we were post-Suez in the late 1950s when we did not see ourselves as members of the EEC. Macmillan did not submit his application until the early 60s , and it then took two rebuffs and a third attempt by Heath a decade later to eventually gain entry. A similar timescale now seems likely. I certainly do not expect to see the EU as a leading issue at any election in 2024 or earlier. It will be very peripheral - in the same way that EEC membership was at the elections of 1964- 1966 - 1970- 1987 and 1992. Even the elections of 1997 and 2001 saw debate confined to membership of the Euro.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
If that's the plan then the government are finally kicking into gear and we could see the back of this shit well before the summer. I guess they have realised the opportunity cost of not stepping up vaccines, it destroys so much of the service sector with the whole nation being in tier 4 indefinitely.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Well 1m/week would be the zero-point. Ramping up would be after that.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
Simon Russell Beale. He’s a brilliantly versatile actor.
We've already seen a heavy presence from them on here today; they're clearly all fired up (despite obviously being disappointed it wasn't No Deal) for next year, which will be the next major battle of British politics.
But for BoZo the biggest battles will be internal.
The headbangers are not going to keep quiet, and he still has to explain to the red Wallers why he sold them out.
Apart from that...
How that woman has the gall to criticise the Tories on fishing when she and her party opposed reclaiming any Scottish fishing catch from the EU and the Tories have ensured catch will be reclaimed over the next 5 years is beyond me!
The Red Wall meanwhile has got the end of free movement and its replacement by a points system and reclaimed sovereignty as it voted for
The problem is that the Scottish will consider that they have given up plenty and not got what they were told they would get in return. To be fair that seems like a reasonable assessment.
Some of the 1% of Scots who are fishermen might, the rest will be grateful they are reclaiming some catch.
The 99% of Scots remaining who are not fishermen will be grateful for a Deal not No Deal Brexit
1%? There are 50k fishermen in Scotland?
Do you have any source for that?
I'd have guessed 10k.
In 2016 - 4,832 fishermen were employed on Scottish based vessels representing 0.2% of the workforce
Sudden thought: did it say if they are actually Scottish? The bigger boats do employ third country folk (e.g. Filipinos) to a n [edit] surprising degree. Maybe not a lot, but still more than I'd expected.
Edit: I'm not sure if they actually live ashore at all. Or what their tax situation is.
Yeah, the truth is that British folk don't want to work the boats or gut fish in Grimsby. I don't blame them.
Total bollock foxy, coming from a small fishing port as I do and having worked trawlers I can tell you for sure that plenty of us were happy to work boats and gut fish....however when half of our quota was redistributed to other countries in the 70's it overtime became harder and harder to make a living.
When I finally quit trawlers in 85 we were down to only being able to fish 6 weeks of the year. The skipper could no longer make any money because a boat costs maintenance money whether it goes to sea or not.
He had two choices go slowly bankrupt or lay off the crew and sell his quota. People always make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell their quota's gleefully. I am sure some of the large concerns that ran a fleet might have been but not the independents
Foxy was referring to 2020 not nineteencanteen I think.
Fishing is a tradition as much as anything and tends to run in families. When you break the link as independents give up due to decreasing catches then you break the link. About half the kids I grew up expected to spend their lives in the fishing industry. These days my home town which was a thriving fishing community is a marina for middle class yachties.
Also fishing pays less than it did because fleets hire cheap deck hands from third countries as he noted. When I went to sea a deck hand would get paid a percentage from the catch.....now I suspect those philipinno deck hands probably get less than minimum wage
What you are complaining about is the pauperisation and exploitation of the British working class into casual jobs. Like Brexit is going to help with that! 🙄
When captains cannot crew their boats with Britons at the going rate, is that the fault of the EU27, or a fault of a capitalist system increasingly weighted against the workers? And how will Brexit help with that?
If you make it harder for boats to pay their way by cutting their catches then it makes it more imperative to pay less to crews....who was responsible for cutting the profits of boats....oh that would be joining the europeans and having to hand over half our fishing wouldn't it. UK boats were mostly crewed by uk people till your beloved europe made it so you could either make a living and employ cheap labour. The eu has done more to collapse the wages of the working class than any other force.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Well 1m/week would be the zero-point. Ramping up would be after that.
I don’t read the article that way. A million in a week represents a dramatic ramping up, on top of the existing Pfizer programme which hasn’t reached a million after nearly three weeks
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
Simon Russell Beale. He’s a brilliantly versatile actor.
Also a very good presenter, e.g. BBC4: A Christmas History of Sacred Music
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
Simon Russell Beale. He’s a brilliantly versatile actor.
Bloody hell! So it was. Comic and deeply sinister too.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Yes, I agree. It looks dauntingly unachievable. And yet we now have the biggest testing regime of any large country (certainly per capita) so maybe we can scale up? Even one million a week rising to 2 or 3m a week by the end of Jan would be a potential gamechanger, if the ascent continues.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Well 1m/week would be the zero-point. Ramping up would be after that.
I don’t read the article that way. A million in a week represents a dramatic ramping up, on top of the existing Pfizer programme which hasn’t reached a million after nearly three weeks
No, it's a different roll-out given the differences in the logistics. They won't be distributing AZN through the same channel as Pfizer.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
I'm not sure I really agree there. This article is largely rooted in American-financed British productions, and secondarily US-funded European ones. The really interesting cases are the genuine internationally balanced collaborations, and many recent 'British', or UK-made films, fall neither into that or any separate, genuinely national category. The French model of a confident domestic focus, balanced every now and then by breakout international hits, has plenty to show for it.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
Actually The Crown is produced by SPE UK so it's ultimately Japan, but the specific company making it is British and bought by SPE a few years back.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Yes, I agree. It looks dauntingly unachievable. And yet we now have the biggest testing regime of any large country (certainly per capita) so maybe we can scale up? Even one million a week rising to 2 or 3m a week by the end of Jan would be a potential gamechanger, if the ascent continues.
Could be one advantage of National Health Service.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
If I was to make a prediction I think by mid next year we will have some kind of "normality"
Nice. Pretty sure you railed at me a while back for saying this. Referring the unemployed etc? Changed your mind? I do, however, agree with your new found opinion.
If I was to make a prediction I think by mid next year we will have some kind of "normality"
Nice. Pretty sure you railed at me a while back for saying this. Referring the unemployed etc? Changed your mind? I do, however, agree with your new found opinion.
I think the economy will be in a hole, lots of people will be unemployed but when I say "normality" I mean COVID not being so much of an issue.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Well 1m/week would be the zero-point. Ramping up would be after that.
I don’t read the article that way. A million in a week represents a dramatic ramping up, on top of the existing Pfizer programme which hasn’t reached a million after nearly three weeks
If I was to make a prediction I think by mid next year we will have some kind of "normality"
Nice. Pretty sure you railed at me a while back for saying this. Referring the unemployed etc? Changed your mind? I do, however, agree with your new found opinion.
I think the economy will be in a hole, lots of people will be unemployed but when I say "normality" I mean COVID not being so much of an issue.
If I was to make a prediction I think by mid next year we will have some kind of "normality"
Nice. Pretty sure you railed at me a while back for saying this. Referring the unemployed etc? Changed your mind? I do, however, agree with your new found opinion.
I think the economy will be in a hole, lots of people will be unemployed but when I say "normality" I mean COVID not being so much of an issue.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
Simon Russell Beale. He’s a brilliantly versatile actor.
I remember him in 1988 as Sir Fopling Flutter in The Man of Mode. He was a fantastic fop (as the name suggests), but with a mini-me in the same dandy outfit. I loved him in that.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
I wouldn't be surprised if they focused so much on the plot being on the aftermath of his death that they didn't put as much effort into the Stalin role, which is a shame. Still one of my favourite movies from the last few years, no question.
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
Starting at one million per week, described as a significant ramping up. So 100m by March looks unachievable
Well 1m/week would be the zero-point. Ramping up would be after that.
I don’t read the article that way. A million in a week represents a dramatic ramping up, on top of the existing Pfizer programme which hasn’t reached a million after nearly three weeks
No, it's a different roll-out given the differences in the logistics. They won't be distributing AZN through the same channel as Pfizer.
Yep. In Guernsey the Pfizer is done at the hospital or directly to care homes. The Oxford vaccine via the islands biggest sports hall.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
Actually on checking, Lavrentiy was a porker at the end.
We've already seen a heavy presence from them on here today; they're clearly all fired up (despite obviously being disappointed it wasn't No Deal) for next year, which will be the next major battle of British politics.
But for BoZo the biggest battles will be internal.
The headbangers are not going to keep quiet, and he still has to explain to the red Wallers why he sold them out.
Apart from that...
How that woman has the gall to criticise the Tories on fishing when she and her party opposed reclaiming any Scottish fishing catch from the EU and the Tories have ensured catch will be reclaimed over the next 5 years is beyond me!
The Red Wall meanwhile has got the end of free movement and its replacement by a points system and reclaimed sovereignty as it voted for
The problem is that the Scottish will consider that they have given up plenty and not got what they were told they would get in return. To be fair that seems like a reasonable assessment.
Some of the 1% of Scots who are fishermen might, the rest will be grateful they are reclaiming some catch.
The 99% of Scots remaining who are not fishermen will be grateful for a Deal not No Deal Brexit
1%? There are 50k fishermen in Scotland?
Do you have any source for that?
I'd have guessed 10k.
In 2016 - 4,832 fishermen were employed on Scottish based vessels representing 0.2% of the workforce
Sudden thought: did it say if they are actually Scottish? The bigger boats do employ third country folk (e.g. Filipinos) to a n [edit] surprising degree. Maybe not a lot, but still more than I'd expected.
Edit: I'm not sure if they actually live ashore at all. Or what their tax situation is.
Yeah, the truth is that British folk don't want to work the boats or gut fish in Grimsby. I don't blame them.
Total bollock foxy, coming from a small fishing port as I do and having worked trawlers I can tell you for sure that plenty of us were happy to work boats and gut fish....however when half of our quota was redistributed to other countries in the 70's it overtime became harder and harder to make a living.
When I finally quit trawlers in 85 we were down to only being able to fish 6 weeks of the year. The skipper could no longer make any money because a boat costs maintenance money whether it goes to sea or not.
He had two choices go slowly bankrupt or lay off the crew and sell his quota. People always make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell their quota's gleefully. I am sure some of the large concerns that ran a fleet might have been but not the independents
Foxy was referring to 2020 not nineteencanteen I think.
Fishing is a tradition as much as anything and tends to run in families. When you break the link as independents give up due to decreasing catches then you break the link. About half the kids I grew up expected to spend their lives in the fishing industry. These days my home town which was a thriving fishing community is a marina for middle class yachties.
Also fishing pays less than it did because fleets hire cheap deck hands from third countries as he noted. When I went to sea a deck hand would get paid a percentage from the catch.....now I suspect those philipinno deck hands probably get less than minimum wage
What you are complaining about is the pauperisation and exploitation of the British working class into casual jobs. Like Brexit is going to help with that! 🙄
When captains cannot crew their boats with Britons at the going rate, is that the fault of the EU27, or a fault of a capitalist system increasingly weighted against the workers? And how will Brexit help with that?
If you make it harder for boats to pay their way by cutting their catches then it makes it more imperative to pay less to crews....who was responsible for cutting the profits of boats....oh that would be joining the europeans and having to hand over half our fishing wouldn't it. UK boats were mostly crewed by uk people till your beloved europe made it so you could either make a living and employ cheap labour. The eu has done more to collapse the wages of the working class than any other force.
If you think Brexit and the Tories are going to fix it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Unless, of course, "getting a visa" for musicians is the same as, say, getting a "visa" for Brits visiting Australia.
This takes about 5-10 minutes online, and you are sent a code/QR which goes to your phone, which you can show the Australian immigration service as you enter. That's it.
10 minutes.
This may flummox the most smacked-out, ket-addicted drill-guitarist-rapper. but I think for most artists it should be do-able without necessarily destroying the live music industry across Europe.
But then maybe the UK/EU are intent on building a more Bhutan-like visa system, where you have to get an appointment at the Embassy and you are morally vetted by seventeen monks, over several weeks.
We've already seen a heavy presence from them on here today; they're clearly all fired up (despite obviously being disappointed it wasn't No Deal) for next year, which will be the next major battle of British politics.
But for BoZo the biggest battles will be internal.
The headbangers are not going to keep quiet, and he still has to explain to the red Wallers why he sold them out.
Apart from that...
How that woman has the gall to criticise the Tories on fishing when she and her party opposed reclaiming any Scottish fishing catch from the EU and the Tories have ensured catch will be reclaimed over the next 5 years is beyond me!
The Red Wall meanwhile has got the end of free movement and its replacement by a points system and reclaimed sovereignty as it voted for
The problem is that the Scottish will consider that they have given up plenty and not got what they were told they would get in return. To be fair that seems like a reasonable assessment.
Some of the 1% of Scots who are fishermen might, the rest will be grateful they are reclaiming some catch.
The 99% of Scots remaining who are not fishermen will be grateful for a Deal not No Deal Brexit
1%? There are 50k fishermen in Scotland?
Do you have any source for that?
I'd have guessed 10k.
In 2016 - 4,832 fishermen were employed on Scottish based vessels representing 0.2% of the workforce
Sudden thought: did it say if they are actually Scottish? The bigger boats do employ third country folk (e.g. Filipinos) to a n [edit] surprising degree. Maybe not a lot, but still more than I'd expected.
Edit: I'm not sure if they actually live ashore at all. Or what their tax situation is.
Yeah, the truth is that British folk don't want to work the boats or gut fish in Grimsby. I don't blame them.
Total bollock foxy, coming from a small fishing port as I do and having worked trawlers I can tell you for sure that plenty of us were happy to work boats and gut fish....however when half of our quota was redistributed to other countries in the 70's it overtime became harder and harder to make a living.
When I finally quit trawlers in 85 we were down to only being able to fish 6 weeks of the year. The skipper could no longer make any money because a boat costs maintenance money whether it goes to sea or not.
He had two choices go slowly bankrupt or lay off the crew and sell his quota. People always make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell their quota's gleefully. I am sure some of the large concerns that ran a fleet might have been but not the independents
Foxy was referring to 2020 not nineteencanteen I think.
Fishing is a tradition as much as anything and tends to run in families. When you break the link as independents give up due to decreasing catches then you break the link. About half the kids I grew up expected to spend their lives in the fishing industry. These days my home town which was a thriving fishing community is a marina for middle class yachties.
Also fishing pays less than it did because fleets hire cheap deck hands from third countries as he noted. When I went to sea a deck hand would get paid a percentage from the catch.....now I suspect those philipinno deck hands probably get less than minimum wage
What you are complaining about is the pauperisation and exploitation of the British working class into casual jobs. Like Brexit is going to help with that! 🙄
When captains cannot crew their boats with Britons at the going rate, is that the fault of the EU27, or a fault of a capitalist system increasingly weighted against the workers? And how will Brexit help with that?
If you make it harder for boats to pay their way by cutting their catches then it makes it more imperative to pay less to crews....who was responsible for cutting the profits of boats....oh that would be joining the europeans and having to hand over half our fishing wouldn't it. UK boats were mostly crewed by uk people till your beloved europe made it so you could either make a living and employ cheap labour. The eu has done more to collapse the wages of the working class than any other force.
If you think Brexit and the Tories are going to fix it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Let's get on with it. Millions of Oxford ready and waiting for vaccination. Let's get all 60+ preferably 50+ vaccinated two doses by end March. Get the Army in if necessary. Biggest national priority since World War 2.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
I wouldn't be surprised if they focused so much on the plot being on the aftermath of his death that they didn't put as much effort into the Stalin role, which is a shame. Still one of my favourite movies from the last few years, no question.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
It is one of my favourite movies of recent years. Scandalously uncelebrated, maybe.
It's like the Spinal Tap of communist-politics-movies. It is so close to being actually believeable - and adheres to historical truth quite closely - yet it is still outrageously surreal and hilariously WTF.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
I'm not sure I really agree there. This article is largely rooted in American-financed British productions, and secondarily US-funded European ones. The really interesting cases are the genuine internationally balanced collaborations, and many recent 'British', or UK-made films, fall neither into that or any separate, genuinely national category. The French model of a confident domestic focus, balanced every now and then by breakout international hits, has plenty to show for it.
So, I ask you again, give us a list of these brilliant and influential French movies made since, say, 2000AD.
I must say I have seen quite a few politicians decide to try to stop things like mobile phone masts on health grounds 'just in case'. I don't think it would be hard to fine some non-LDs doing the same thing on 5G, not that that makes it ok.
I have sat in many planning meetings where councillors, of all parties but conservatives more than most, have voted against mast proposals faced with residents lobbying about all manner of concerns, most commonly the supposed damaging effects of the radiation particularly on children.
But, this is different. This is not a local councillor. This is the MP for Bath.
An MP, moreover, who accepts that the objections to 5G on health grounds are spurious.
But, she is not willing to say that directly to the objectors -- rather she lends them her support.
"Hobhouse was unable to return my calls, " writes Nick Cohen.
No surprise to find Wera is a LibDem MP.
Long, long, long sigh. Have the LibDems learnt nothing ? Was the lesson not painful enough ?
We've already seen a heavy presence from them on here today; they're clearly all fired up (despite obviously being disappointed it wasn't No Deal) for next year, which will be the next major battle of British politics.
But for BoZo the biggest battles will be internal.
The headbangers are not going to keep quiet, and he still has to explain to the red Wallers why he sold them out.
Apart from that...
How that woman has the gall to criticise the Tories on fishing when she and her party opposed reclaiming any Scottish fishing catch from the EU and the Tories have ensured catch will be reclaimed over the next 5 years is beyond me!
The Red Wall meanwhile has got the end of free movement and its replacement by a points system and reclaimed sovereignty as it voted for
The problem is that the Scottish will consider that they have given up plenty and not got what they were told they would get in return. To be fair that seems like a reasonable assessment.
Some of the 1% of Scots who are fishermen might, the rest will be grateful they are reclaiming some catch.
The 99% of Scots remaining who are not fishermen will be grateful for a Deal not No Deal Brexit
1%? There are 50k fishermen in Scotland?
Do you have any source for that?
I'd have guessed 10k.
In 2016 - 4,832 fishermen were employed on Scottish based vessels representing 0.2% of the workforce
Sudden thought: did it say if they are actually Scottish? The bigger boats do employ third country folk (e.g. Filipinos) to a n [edit] surprising degree. Maybe not a lot, but still more than I'd expected.
Edit: I'm not sure if they actually live ashore at all. Or what their tax situation is.
Yeah, the truth is that British folk don't want to work the boats or gut fish in Grimsby. I don't blame them.
Total bollock foxy, coming from a small fishing port as I do and having worked trawlers I can tell you for sure that plenty of us were happy to work boats and gut fish....however when half of our quota was redistributed to other countries in the 70's it overtime became harder and harder to make a living.
When I finally quit trawlers in 85 we were down to only being able to fish 6 weeks of the year. The skipper could no longer make any money because a boat costs maintenance money whether it goes to sea or not.
He had two choices go slowly bankrupt or lay off the crew and sell his quota. People always make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell their quota's gleefully. I am sure some of the large concerns that ran a fleet might have been but not the independents
Foxy was referring to 2020 not nineteencanteen I think.
Fishing is a tradition as much as anything and tends to run in families. When you break the link as independents give up due to decreasing catches then you break the link. About half the kids I grew up expected to spend their lives in the fishing industry. These days my home town which was a thriving fishing community is a marina for middle class yachties.
Also fishing pays less than it did because fleets hire cheap deck hands from third countries as he noted. When I went to sea a deck hand would get paid a percentage from the catch.....now I suspect those philipinno deck hands probably get less than minimum wage
What you are complaining about is the pauperisation and exploitation of the British working class into casual jobs. Like Brexit is going to help with that! 🙄
When captains cannot crew their boats with Britons at the going rate, is that the fault of the EU27, or a fault of a capitalist system increasingly weighted against the workers? And how will Brexit help with that?
If you make it harder for boats to pay their way by cutting their catches then it makes it more imperative to pay less to crews....who was responsible for cutting the profits of boats....oh that would be joining the europeans and having to hand over half our fishing wouldn't it. UK boats were mostly crewed by uk people till your beloved europe made it so you could either make a living and employ cheap labour. The eu has done more to collapse the wages of the working class than any other force.
If you think Brexit and the Tories are going to fix it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Have I ever claimed that. However you are in a protected profession a doctor comes here, they get paid the same they cant undercut you. Most people in the private sector don't have that luxury. Most people in the private sector have to compete with people who will come over and do so for less wages. The salary for what I do for example hasn't risen since 2002 when I look at job boards and mine is a job we keep getting told we have a shortage of. In 2002 I could apply for a job paying about 40k, 18 years later its still paying 40k.
I suspect if the nhs could recruit a doctor and pay proportionate to what they ask for and you had to compete with spanish doctors willing to do the job for less you would soon be whinging
Unless, of course, "getting a visa" for musicians is the same as, say, getting a "visa" for Brits visiting Australia.
This takes about 5-10 minutes online, and you are sent a code/QR which goes to your phone, which you can show the Australian immigration service as you enter. That's it.
10 minutes.
This may flummox the most smacked-out, ket-addicted drill-guitarist-rapper. but I think for most artists it should be do-able without necessarily destroying the live music industry across Europe.
But then maybe the UK/EU are intent on building a more Bhutan-like visa system, where you have to get an appointment at the Embassy and you are morally vetted by seventeen monks, over several weeks.
Who knows?
Well, it will be reciprocal, if EU workers get such easy access to work here.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
It is one of my favourite movies of recent years. Scandalously uncelebrated, maybe.
It's like the Spinal Tap of communist-politics-movies. It is so close to being actually believeable - and adheres to historical truth quite closely - yet it is still outrageously surreal and hilariously WTF.
Genius.
Jason Isaacs as Marshal Zhukov as a bluff, expletive spewing northerner? The scene of the dacha being cleared? Genius.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
I'm not sure I really agree there. This article is largely rooted in American-financed British productions, and secondarily US-funded European ones. The really interesting cases are the genuine internationally balanced collaborations, and many recent 'British', or UK-made films, fall neither into that or any separate, genuinely national category. The French model of a confident domestic focus, balanced every now and then by breakout international hits, has plenty to show for it.
So, I ask you again, give us a list of these brilliant and influential French movies made since, say, 2000AD.
I'm impressed that there's someone in the world who thinks the French model of movie making is one that should be followed. Not even French people think that and have been trying extremely hard to ape our model.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
Simon Russell Beale. He’s a brilliantly versatile actor.
I remember him in 1988 as Sir Fopling Flutter in The Man of Mode. He was a fantastic fop (as the name suggests), but with a mini-me in the same dandy outfit. I loved him in that.
First came to my attention when I saw him playing Caliban in Sam Mendes’ production of The Tempest, which would have been around that time.
As above, the only question here is whether Brexiter MPs are prepared to re-engage in the real political world and embrace this deal as something to champion and take forward (as, to his credit, Farage has realised) - or whether they are going to underline the essential futility of their ideological purity and posture and pose by abstaining or opposing the government deal.
Wise words from your posts this afternoon.
My advice would be magnanimity and to go back to sober, sensible good Government.
Make Conservatives the safe choice and Labour the risky/disruptive one in 2024 again.
Let Labour point the way forward once again.
I will be writing about what Labour needs to do to win again in the weeks to come.
You won't like all of it.
It is not in their control to win it. If Brexit is a success, the govt gets re-elected easily. If its average, the govt probably still get re-elected but it might be a hung parliament. If its a mess, it will likely be a hung parliament given Starmer will neither inspire nor give the govt Corbyns open goals.
I wrote an article a few weeks about the Fall of the West. The importance of stable nations, that form its building blocks, was a key part of it.
Jonathan's first reaction was to sneer at that. He then mentioned a few institutions he liked (as a man of the Left) like the NHS, BBC, and Unions - and I responded positively - but he ignored that, and followed up with nothing but a deafening silence.
He's an ex-Labour parliamentary candidate. And that is the problem Labour has.
They will forever be confined to university towns and metropolitan cities until they rediscover their patriotism.
Top tip, never confuse a lack of reply for deliberate silence. Like many I dip in and out of here and no doubt miss much. I would be very happy to reply to any point, but sometimes the real world beckons.
Ok, but your original post wasn't very friendly nor generous.
I think it touched a nerve with you, which I find interesting of itself.
There's lots in English, and British, reformist and radical history to be proud of for the Left, as well as in our literature and broader culture. Not to mention our absurdly beautiful country itself.
Why not find it, love it, and champion it?
Who says we don’t? I suspect you or others on the right really get the patriotism of the left. The right seem to believe they own patriotism and confuse it for nationalism.
When a Conservative says Labour need to be more patriotic, I recommend responding with a simple request.
Ok, so please suggest some left of centre patriotic policies that will bring the floating voters flocking.
Silence indicates they are gaslighting.
I *do not* say that Labour needs to be more patriotic - I think they should be how they want. But there are quite a few patriotic left of centre policies that will bring floating voters flocking that I can think of. These include: re-opening branch lines closed by the Beeching cuts. Public procurement policies helping British manufacturing. All in on Welsh tidal power. Quota of British-made films to be shown in cinemas (this was our national policy in the and contributed to the success of Carry On and the Hammer films) - an updated version would be what Justin Trudeau just introduced in Canada. There are tonnes actually. Just think of anything that France would do.
The Film/TV industry is currently one of the country's biggest success stories. Given how many blockbusters are shot in Britain and are officially UK co-productions a quota system would be both futile and unnecessary.
Compared to the French industry, the British story, as you say, is largely one of hosting facilities and co-production. France's quota system has had a vast impact on its film tradition, and through this on its cultural self-perception and self-confidence.
You will, then, be happy to cite the many great and famous French movies of the last ten years, which have had international impact, fat outweighing any British films from the same era.
Not really, because I'm talking about 60 years rather than 10 years, and France's films are as much important to itself, and its own identity and cohesion, as to any international soft power counted in money.
lol. So that's a No then, AKA as "OK, I was talking complete shite"
While sometimes having interesting things to say, you're prone to this sudden abuse on certain issues, but still yet to learn at a mature age that it doesn't make you right. It's not 'shite', simply because the French are not particularly bothered about the supposed interational soft power of foreign-financed co-productions, compared to what they regard as these films doing for their heritage and identity.
It's not "abuse" to point out a basic fact. You were largely talking nonsense.
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
It doesn't work like this, unfortunately, but I wish it did, Foreign financing and money sets the agenda. Four Weddings as a Funeral, for example, had to have a liberated American woman releasing a loveable but repressed Englishman, because that's what financing and target demanded. The many similar examples are well-known in the industry.
But this cuts all ways. Check the blockbuster American movies which now, nearly always, have to foreground some positive Chinese character - as a hero, not a villain - so the American studios, who pay all the money to make these things, have a decent chance at grabbing a slice of the biggest movie market in the world: China.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
I'm not sure I really agree there. This article is largely rooted in American-financed British productions, and secondarily US-funded European ones. The really interesting cases are the genuine internationally balanced collaborations, and many recent 'British', or UK-made films, fall neither into that or any separate, genuinely national category. The French model of a confident domestic focus, balanced every now and then by breakout international hits, has plenty to show for it.
So, I ask you again, give us a list of these brilliant and influential French movies made since, say, 2000AD.
Not movies, but Spiral and The Bureau are fantastic and kick the arses of the UK's rough equivalents, Line of Duty and Spooks.
I must say I have seen quite a few politicians decide to try to stop things like mobile phone masts on health grounds 'just in case'. I don't think it would be hard to fine some non-LDs doing the same thing on 5G, not that that makes it ok.
I have sat in many planning meetings where councillors, of all parties but conservatives more than most, have voted against mast proposals faced with residents lobbying about all manner of concerns, most commonly the supposed damaging effects of the radiation particularly on children.
But, this is different. This is not a local councillor. This is the MP for Bath.
An MP, moreover, who accepts that the objections to 5G on health grounds are spurious.
But, she is not willing to say that directly to the objectors -- rather she lends them her support.
"Hobhouse was unable to return my calls, " writes Nick Cohen.
No surprise to find Wera is a LibDem MP.
Long, long, long sigh. Have the LibDems learnt nothing ? Was the lesson not painful enough ?
It's really not that different. Heck, on planning matters councillors would typically have more influence if they sit on the appropriate committee. MPs oppose planning matters all the time, as they have no real influence so they might as well oppose anything which people write to them about.
It's the same thing, for the same reason, it's just sadder as MPs have influence on other things, and if they act that way for that it is a bad sign, granted.
Just watching Death of Stalin again, Malenkov is suggesting a demotion for Beria, perhaps minister of fisheries. Maybe a portakabin in Peterhead for Gav?
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Guy playing Beria was fantastic in that movie. It's a hilarious film, but he was still a threatening presence.
The whole cast was good if not quite perfectly transferable physically (fat Beria v skinny Krushchev). The only slight disappointment was Stalin himself; I'm sure he was the coarse bully portrayed but the malevolent Sphinx aspect was lacking.
It is one of my favourite movies of recent years. Scandalously uncelebrated, maybe.
It's like the Spinal Tap of communist-politics-movies. It is so close to being actually believeable - and adheres to historical truth quite closely - yet it is still outrageously surreal and hilariously WTF.
Genius.
Jason Isaacs as Marshal Zhukov as a bluff, expletive spewing northerner? The scene of the dacha being cleared? Genius.
All the leading Communists in it have working class accents. As they did.
Comments
I'll be interested to read your header, when it comes.
You have of course criticised many aspects of the current Tory party.
Genuine question this: does it worry you that your party has ended up the way it has? Does it shake your belief in conservatism at all?
Your argument is misframed anyway. In an era of globalisation and co-production the film industry is not divided by nation, not anymore. It is, more importantly, divided by language, which is a very different thing.
There is a huge, successful English language sector of the film industry, there is a very large and successful Hindi speaking industry, there are Chinese speaking films (Mandarin and Cantonese), and so on.
The French speaking movie industry is now relatively small, and obscure, tho it throws up the odd gem. The Italian-speaking industry is tiny and getting tinier, and so on.
The Harry Potter movies (enormously successful, worldwide, and a big projection of "Anglo" soft power) are a fascinating example. Are they British? Or American? Global? Or what?
They are theoretically set in "Britain", are adapted from a British writer, they are filmed in Britain (locations and studios), and use tons of British talent (from all the major actors to the cameramen and gaffers). Yet they often have American directors and producers, they are organised and financed by American studios, so maybe they are at least half American? And a huge chunk of their market is China.
The argument is increasingly spurious. There is an English language speaking movie industry. It's capital is probably (still) LA, but London and NYC are easily as important as sources of talent, London also has studios that rival anywhere, and Canada is pretty salient, too
Nick Cohen
Irrational notions become dangerous when supported by those who know better"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/26/why-would-the-lib-dems-hook-up-with-5g-cranks-it-can-only-be-cowardice
Ah well. C'est la vie, as someone must once have said.
Have a good evening.
Oxford vaccine could be approved tomorrow says telegraph
Jonathan Sumption
The Paris Peace Conference of 1919-20 was where the modern world went wrong. The consequences of France’s vindictive determination to marginalise Germany are well known, and were denounced at the time by John Maynard Keynes in one of the most biting political pamphlets ever written. It took 30 years to undo its effects."
(£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-moment-the-modern-world-went-wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oET45GzMI
The small print is really going to matter, as always.
https://twitter.com/CV_UHB/status/1342942529679982598?s=19
If so, and if true, and if it happens, and IF nothing goes wrong (!!!) that will be an incredible achievement. It would mean the UK approaching Herd Immunity by April
#1 is of course something anyone could say.
I've no great source of information on this, so I'll be interested to see if your news plays out.
I’m not against Beria’s actual fate, mind
Finest league in the world?
Saw this posted today on the FTTP strategy, does look like FTTP is being taken seriously as the majority of rollout and outside in is a much better strategy than the FTTC rollout.
Dovetailing with commercial rollouts (like in my case) makes a lot of sense.
Maybe we will have got decent FTTP coverage by 2024.
I certainly do not expect to see the EU as a leading issue at any election in 2024 or earlier. It will be very peripheral - in the same way that EEC membership was at the elections of 1964- 1966 - 1970- 1987 and 1992. Even the elections of 1997 and 2001 saw debate confined to membership of the Euro.
There is no longer any such thing as a "national film industry" telling solely national stories about their nation or culture, unless you drill down to tiny movies on small budgets which can, indeed tell parochial tales of interest solely to the French, or Polish, or Azeris, who made and finance them, but generally no one else watches these films
Same goes for TV. What nationality is The Crown, one of the most successful TV series of recent years, worldwide? Is it British or American? I'd say it's culturally 95% British even if financially 80% American.
What about Game of Thrones, the most successful TV series of all time? Filmed largely in Britain, based largely on British history, used mainly British actors, was shot in many British locations (and elsewhere, too). Theoretically it was American-made, but I'd say it was a pretty subtle but powerful projection of British soft cultural power.
https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/are-international-co-productions-the-future-of-tv-drama/
Which won't entirely be to Labour's advantage.
Comic and deeply sinister too.
I do, however, agree with your new found opinion.
This takes about 5-10 minutes online, and you are sent a code/QR which goes to your phone, which you can show the Australian immigration service as you enter. That's it.
10 minutes.
This may flummox the most smacked-out, ket-addicted drill-guitarist-rapper. but I think for most artists it should be do-able without necessarily destroying the live music industry across Europe.
But then maybe the UK/EU are intent on building a more Bhutan-like visa system, where you have to get an appointment at the Embassy and you are morally vetted by seventeen monks, over several weeks.
Who knows?
Let's get on with it. Millions of Oxford ready and waiting for vaccination. Let's get all 60+ preferably 50+ vaccinated two doses by end March. Get the Army in if necessary. Biggest national priority since World War 2.
It's like the Spinal Tap of communist-politics-movies. It is so close to being actually believeable - and adheres to historical truth quite closely - yet it is still outrageously surreal and hilariously WTF.
Genius.
An MP, moreover, who accepts that the objections to 5G on health grounds are spurious.
But, she is not willing to say that directly to the objectors -- rather she lends them her support.
"Hobhouse was unable to return my calls, " writes Nick Cohen.
No surprise to find Wera is a LibDem MP.
Long, long, long sigh. Have the LibDems learnt nothing ? Was the lesson not painful enough ?
I suspect if the nhs could recruit a doctor and pay proportionate to what they ask for and you had to compete with spanish doctors willing to do the job for less you would soon be whinging
That isn't what Priti Ghastly has in mind though.
It's the same thing, for the same reason, it's just sadder as MPs have influence on other things, and if they act that way for that it is a bad sign, granted.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1342959649205719040?s=20