I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
At the end Odysseus also said ‘thank God that’s over.’
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
At the end Odysseus also said ‘thank God that’s over.’
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
One person behind me at the end said ‘thank God that’s over.’
Philistines are still around.
Were any Philistines actually named Phil?
“Nolan takes a different psychological turn for the very end of the film. Rather than reclaiming his throne, a gravely wounded Odysseus abdicates his power to his son and sails away into exile… at which point he realises he’s Mr Benn - and suddenly he’s back in a Gentleman’s Tailors…”
At least Philistines are wary of geeks baring their gifts.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
Burnham seems to have the same level of cockiness that his hero Kinnock had in dismissing Blair and brown along with thatcher . At least Blair and thatcher won multiple elections to be pm .
My Google feed is 70% Daily Telegraph. 70% of my feeds are telling me Burnham is a terrible Prime Minister. Statistics don't lie.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Necrophilia is illegal I think
She's been embalmed so it might be legal. The aristocracy operate to a different set of rules to the rest of us anyway.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
“ Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?”
I understand where you say UK can help balance of payments a bit with some tax revenue, but can you explain “UK Profits?” I’ve understood till now there’s nothing under the North Sea UK owns.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Necrophilia is illegal I think
She's been embalmed so it might be legal. The aristocracy operate to a different set of rules to the rest of us anyway.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
Is this the TUC speech yesterday? If so, his audience on the day are still living their glory year of 1978.
I have plenty of complaints about Burnham, but playing to each audience like Johnson did is politically astute, certainly when Starmer was so incredibly poor at addressing his audiences.
Some choreography for Monday. Civil servants told members of cabinet being dismissed will be asked to see Andy Burnham in the Prime Minister's office in the Commons, starting at 2.00 pm. The Downing Street "Perp Walk" of new appointments is scheduled to start at 4.00.
Just remember: no-one has voted for his bullshit.
I thought you would be in favour of the King we haven't voted for even if he did the dirty on Diana
Burnham shagged Diana?
Quick: get onto the Sun. You'll make a killing with that story.
Necrophilia is illegal I think
She's been embalmed so it might be legal. The aristocracy operate to a different set of rules to the rest of us anyway.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
Ultimately, if we are to avert the most extreme effects of global warming, most of the remaining fossil fuels need to stay under the ground. If it were the case that extracting more from below the North Sea meant that less would be extracted elsewhere then, yes, it would make environmental sense to continue to exploit the North Sea. But we all know that that is not the case. It just means the world as a whole continues to burn more gas and oil.
So yes, drilling in the North Sea will go some small way towards improving our balance of payments, but it is delusional to claim as some do that it has no downside for the environment.
Arguably it was astute* to exhaust UK Oil and Gas at the point of energy transition to electricity. This licence is irrelevant to UK energy policy, and even more so to climate change policy. But there are countries where policy changes have impacts, eg Canada which is now allowing new pipelines. Carney's argument seems to be let's have the pipelines but hope the energy transition makes them redundant. Which feels inconsistent.
🔥 Russia’s “deep rear” logistics just got absolutely smoked by Ukrainian long-range strikes — Moscow & Tambov regions, drone component factories, and an oil facility turned into parking lots. Sea of Azov & Crimea got the mid-range special too.
For some it might still be a bit raw for such satire, but it does show that Tuchel has zero credit left in the tank now, so it’s better for all parties if he just moved on.
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
The Burnham prime minstership look likely to be a white elephant. He has been enthroned because any other possibility was unthinkable. He won't win anything with rhetoric blaming everyone else. It says a lot about Labour that he has become PM in the first place.
For some it might still be a bit raw for such satire, but it does show that Tuchel has zero credit left in the tank now, so it’s better for all parties if he just moved on.
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
@Brixian59 and I said before the tournament Saint Jude was the standout English player.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
I think abstemious is one of only 2 words with all the vowels in the correct order.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I live in studentland and I look into what other people in Lidl put into their baskets, as market research/out of nosiness. Young people don't buy a lot of meat. Maybe chicken.
Drink a lot less alcohol too.
Having picked my 16 year old daughter up from a party last night, I'm happy to relate that reports of the youth going all abstemious are perhaps a tad overstated.
No abstemiousness in our household either. My 17yo son got in at 2 last night, and my 19yo daughter at 3. The latter appears to be very hungover today.
I think abstemious is one of only 2 words with all the vowels in the correct order.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
I never feel like the The Living Daylights loses anything, because it has the background of the Afghanistan War and menacing villians like Necros. Whittaker becomes dangerous at the end too.
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
I’ll have a go, Lucky. I can give you answers that are likely true, though neither of us - being Thatcherite’s - will like the sound of all the answers.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world. Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
Ultimately, if we are to avert the most extreme effects of global warming, most of the remaining fossil fuels need to stay under the ground. If it were the case that extracting more from below the North Sea meant that less would be extracted elsewhere then, yes, it would make environmental sense to continue to exploit the North Sea. But we all know that that is not the case. It just means the world as a whole continues to burn more gas and oil.
So yes, drilling in the North Sea will go some small way towards improving our balance of payments, but it is delusional to claim as some do that it has no downside for the environment.
This is dumb and utterly illogical. Extracting from the North Sea rather than Norway or the Middle East has no impact at all on consumption. Oil and gas are not a resource whose useage is currently limited by supply. So yes, in some small way extracting more from the North Sea will be balanced by buying less from overseas. Nor is it just balance of payments. It is actual cost to consumer. We spend £3 billion a year in tariffs and transport costs just on gas from Norway and the USA. That is money paid by consumers. Money we will not have to spend if we are using North Sea oil and gas.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
I never feel like the The Living Daylights loses anything, because it has the background of the Afghanistan War and menacing villians like Necros. Whittaker becomes dangerous at the end too.
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
That's as relevant today as ever.
Touch of the Patrick Batemans on the oeuvre of Phil Collins here.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
I’ll have a go, Lucky. I can give you answers that are likely true, though neither of us - being Thatcherite’s - will like the sound of all the answers.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world. Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
Nothing we do in terms of the North Sea will make one iota of difference to how much oil and gas we burn. That should be the criteria for whether any individual part of a net zero policy is sensible or not. Indeed shutting down the North Sea and importing oil and gas will make our emissions (if measured properly and including the extraction and transportation emissions) slightly worse than if we continue to use our own hydrocarbons during the transition.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
Parecious - a variant spelling of paroecious adjective (of mosses and related plants) having the male and female reproductive organs at different levels on the same stem
For some it might still be a bit raw for such satire, but it does show that Tuchel has zero credit left in the tank now, so it’s better for all parties if he just moved on.
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
@Brixian59 and I said before the tournament Saint Jude was the standout English player.
That’s because you share the same language whilst the rest of don’t understand him. Jude I mean, not Brix, though applies to both I guess.
I confess I didn’t know Bellingham so well or think much of him. I am now converted to a massive fan. Not just the best attacking midfielder in world football, but in the media interviews he oozed maturity, understanding and leadership. Wow!
OT, the Telegraph have both named and shown a big smiley picture of the man accused of murdering Ann Widdecombe.
Doesn't this sail dangerously close to the sub-judice issue we were discussing the other day? How the hell does someone get a fair trial when his picture has been splashed all across the newspapers/websites?
Just caught up with Burnham’s comments on driverless cars. That’s a politically unnecessary intervention (unlike say defending the triple lock), and is therefore a reliable signal on the direction of policy.
I’m pretty confident this ministry is going to be yet another dud.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are -without a doubt- the best Connery Bonds.
Other S tier Bond movies are Casino Royale and Goldeneye.
I would put the two Dalton movies as upper A tier, with the first just missing out on S tier status because Whittaker was a rubbish baddie.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
In my top 3 for sure. That fight in the train between the two of them. No tongues in cheeks. Just a visceral depiction of bareknuckle physical violence.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
Connery is an extremely boring choice, and also not the correct one.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
Yeah, but that's both nonsense and bollocks.
Everyone I know who was "vegan", or even veggie in some instances, in recent years has now gone pescatarian or flexitarian. It's totally fallen back and has gone off the boil.
You've lost. Sorry.
The only change I have noticed in the last 2 years is everyone everywhere asking you if you have any allergies before each meal, of which there appear to be an explosion, but veganism has gone right out of fashion, plenty of such businesses have closed, and people neither order it nor talk about it much anymore.
People are now eating normal food again. Thank Christ.
I haven't "lost" anything, I'm not a veggie or a vegan so calm down. Veggies and Vegans haven't lost because their preferences are catered for almost everywhere now. Really not sure why what other people choose to eat winds you up so much but it obviously does.
There are loads of veggie and vegan options on menus everywhere these days and that didn't used to be the case a few years ago. A vegetarian or a vegan can go pretty much anywhere now and have a good choice of what to eat. Meat eating, and red-meat eating in particular has declined significantly over recent years.
Restaurants are market driven and will create menus that people want if they are going to stay in business - the days of Aberdeen Steak House and Angus Steak House have long gone.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
Connery is an extremely boring choice, and also not the correct one.
He just has first mover advantage.
Dalton most accurately captured Fleming's Bond.
I would have thought that, given your PB moniker, David Niven should be your choice
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
If only he’d been in a position of power within a govt that could have stopped it.
The Conservatives biggest problem is that they simply didn't deliver for their supporters.
Triple lock, huge increase in BTL, and massive increase in health spending? They certainly did for some of their supporters - the focus was too narrow though, and they’ve created a Millenial generation scarred by private rentals, student loan debts and a huge spike in mortgage costs.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
They are somehow sliding downwards toward a bigger lead with Yougov.
I'm firmly of the opinion that Britain won't get better until people realise that MORE tax is not the way to prosperity.
The noises from the Burnham camp suggest he is going to be more fiscally reckless than Truss.....so that realisation should come sooner rather than later.
Fiscal recklessness if unfunded tax cuts.
Raising taxes id not fiscal recklessness.
It was the blank cheque to cap energy costs, rather than tax cuts, that did for Truss.
I.E. It was the socialist policies.
Like it was New Labour's tory policy of 'light touch' regulation that facilitated the bank crash.
Stick to the knitting, mainstream parties.
It was the way that Brown specifically split regulation. As was foretold by Peter Lilley, when the split was created, in very considerable detail.
But ultimately it was because Brown was addicted to the tax money from the banks and didn’t want them reined in. Anyone talking about a bubble was attacked, furiously.
Lol. That Peter Lilley offering doesn't half do some hard graft. Cable has better gypsy rose lee creds on this, I'd say. Uncle Vince. Whatever, there are multiple times more sages who say now the crash was coming than said so before it did.
For 'ultimately it was because' we'd need to delve into mortgage bonds and the associated derivatives bubble. But yes there's no doubt GB bought (either naively or cynically) the City nonsense about 'just leave us be, we know what we're doing'.
Would any other feasible CoE in the prevailing business/political culture of the time (and esp a tory one, even the great Peter Lilley) have reined it all in? Very unlikely. Maybe a John McDonnell type, but we did specify feasible.
Peter Lilley got his prediction right. That’s why people give it credit. It wasn’t just a guess - a reasoned explanation of what could happen and why.
Sure. But let's not overweight it in the grand scheme of things.
If Brown had been able to listen to others, he might have acted differently.
Other counties did act. There’s a reason Royal Bank of Canada became a Tier 1, after the crisis, for example.
No doubt. But big picture - it was a huge US-originated bond/derivatives bubble which popped and drenched everyone in the vicinity. Esp places (like us) with close links. The City back then was a mini-me of Wall St. Maybe it still is, I don't know. I've been out of it for a while now and my knowledge/experience is getting stale.
The U.K. banks were buying the derivatives because proper risk analysis was deprecated. Regulation on risk could have tapered down the positions.
I was working on a contract in ABN - IT working on derivatives pricing - at the time. The only question the traders were asking each other for months before the end was “when?”
It’s rather well portrayed in the film Margin Call - they knew, but the size and rapidity of it caught them out.
I was on the way back from lunch one day, when I caught up with one of guys, smoking outside. I mention that Ed Balls had been claiming that they’d abolished boom-and-bust. The trader laughed and said that was the top of the market and that he was going to sell everything…
I agree completely. I remember during my Master's in financial economics reading in one of the textbooks about how bets on derivatives could rapidly snowball and cause a financial crisis, spreading from trading arms to the rest of the investment banks to commercial banks unless banks were effectively regulated.
That was several years before 2008.
The idea that no-one warned against the financial crisis, and that no-one could have prevented it, is ridiculous. Effective regulation, like in countries such as Italy, Sweden or Canada, could have done so easily. But we, like the Americans and Irish, had an incompetent and staggeringly complacent group of financial regulators, under a system put in place by Gordon Brown and Ed Balls, and not-overseen by some quangocrat friends of theirs.
Alan Greenspan merits a (dishonourable) mention if we're looking for culprits outside the financial sector participants themselves.
But no, it would not have been easy for any feasible (given the prevailing culture) UK reg regime to have prevented the global financial crisis of 2008 happening or when it did from hitting us hard. It would have been nearer impossible than easy.
Poor regulation was a factor but it was at heart a culture/behavioural problem. You're right that we had it worse than many and that's mainly because our finance sector was disproportionately large and the City tended to ape Wall St in its practices.
And the reason the City tended to ape Wall Street was because both had incompetent and complacent regulators before the financial crisis. The reason Canada and Sweden, etc., didn't have a financial crisis in 2008 was because they'd had one in 1993-94, and had made financial regulation more effective at that time. Whereas we and the Americans made ours much worse in the 90s and 2000s - us under Gordon Brown and the Americans under a complacent Congress and an incompetent Fed.
Our financial sector is not, contrary to popular belief, grotesquely large - financial services are around 8% of our GDP, between Australia, Canada and America at 7% and Switzerland at 9%. Half of that 8% is domestic retail, so about 4% of our GDP is wholesale, and much of that was in markets such as insurance or foreign exchange trading, not directly affected by the financial crisis. It took staggering incompetence to transform a breakdown in regulation in that relatively small sector into a crisis of the sort we saw in 2008-10.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
Yeah, but that's both nonsense and bollocks.
Everyone I know who was "vegan", or even veggie in some instances, in recent years has now gone pescatarian or flexitarian. It's totally fallen back and has gone off the boil.
You've lost. Sorry.
The only change I have noticed in the last 2 years is everyone everywhere asking you if you have any allergies before each meal, of which there appear to be an explosion, but veganism has gone right out of fashion, plenty of such businesses have closed, and people neither order it nor talk about it much anymore.
People are now eating normal food again. Thank Christ.
I haven't "lost" anything, I'm not a veggie or a vegan so calm down. Really not sure why what other people choose to eat winds you up so much but it obviously does.
I just pointed out that there are loads of veggie and vegan options on menus everywhere these days and that didn't used to be the case a few years ago. A vegetarian or a vegan can go pretty much anywhere now and have a good choice of what to eat. Meat eating, and red-meat eating in particular has declined significantly over recent years.
Restaurants are market driven and will create menus that people want if they are going to stay in business - the days of Aberdeen Steak House and Angus Steak House have long gone.
I must admit I find it strange that anyone would be bothered (in a negative fashion) about the presence of vegetarian options on menus. They are generally as good/bad as the rest of the menu and, as an omnivore, I will give them exactly the same consideration I do the rest of the menu. It just means more choice.
I ignore vegan for the purposes of this argument as I find the whole concept rather silly.
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
I think you are overestimating the cost to the economy of "Net Zero", not least because by 2040 there is net bdnefit to the conomy. See fig 4 here:
If only he’d been in a position of power within a govt that could have stopped it.
The Conservatives biggest problem is that they simply didn't deliver for their supporters.
Triple lock, huge increase in BTL, and massive increase in health spending? They certainly did for some of their supporters - the focus was too narrow though, and they’ve created a Millenial generation scarred by private rentals, student loan debts and a huge spike in mortgage costs.
The student loans one is the real crime. and it is no use just blaming the Lib Dems even though they were part of it. This was a policy enacted by a Tory PM and it has been disastrous for both students and higher education alike. For me it is one of the worst policies ever enacted by a government of any stripe.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
They are somehow sliding downwards toward a bigger lead with Yougov.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
I think they should emphasise energy self-reliance. The kind of person living in a big detached house, two cars, solar on the roof, a battery and heat pump.
That should be a classic Conservative household, aspirational and good vibes about being green.
Parecious - a variant spelling of paroecious adjective (of mosses and related plants) having the male and female reproductive organs at different levels on the same stem
Most of these were Edwardian, I think, where they invented names for all sorts of structures just to make the subject incomprehensible to the lay person.
Any guesses for what this is?
Genus: Herbaceous perennial, leaves all basal, in rosette, simple, toothed, petiolate; capitula single on leafless stalks, radiate, with white to pink or red ligules and yellow disc flowers, or flore pleno, phyllaries in two rows, herbaceous, pappus.
Species: Leaves obovate, irregularly serrate, stems procumbent to erect, leafless with 1 capitulum, capitula 12-25mm across. 2n=18.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
Yeah, but that's both nonsense and bollocks.
Everyone I know who was "vegan", or even veggie in some instances, in recent years has now gone pescatarian or flexitarian. It's totally fallen back and has gone off the boil.
You've lost. Sorry.
The only change I have noticed in the last 2 years is everyone everywhere asking you if you have any allergies before each meal, of which there appear to be an explosion, but veganism has gone right out of fashion, plenty of such businesses have closed, and people neither order it nor talk about it much anymore.
People are now eating normal food again. Thank Christ.
I haven't "lost" anything, I'm not a veggie or a vegan so calm down. Veggies and Vegans haven't lost because their preferences are catered for almost everywhere now. Really not sure why what other people choose to eat winds you up so much but it obviously does.
There are loads of veggie and vegan options on menus everywhere these days and that didn't used to be the case a few years ago. A vegetarian or a vegan can go pretty much anywhere now and have a good choice of what to eat. Meat eating, and red-meat eating in particular has declined significantly over recent years.
Restaurants are market driven and will create menus that people want if they are going to stay in business - the days of Aberdeen Steak House and Angus Steak House have long gone.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Not sure who followed who on "net zero" but you could be right.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
I think you are overestimating the cost to the economy of "Net Zero", not least because by 2040 there is net bdnefit to the conomy. See fig 4 here:
That is on top of the benefits in terms of energy independence, resilience, balance of payments etc.
I actually think we'll get to Net Zero without government interference, because the cost of renewables and batteries is droppinmg all the time.
So, what's the benefit of creating a culture war issue over this? I would spend government time and money on improving charging infrastructure, so that anyone can live with an electric car, even if they don't have offstreet parking.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
I think they should emphasise energy self-reliance. The kind of person living in a big detached house, two cars, solar on the roof, a battery and heat pump.
That should be a classic Conservative household, aspirational and good vibes about being green.
There used to be a time when the Conservative party cared about preserving our nature and natural history. Now they only care about preserving their wealth.
Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
Connery is an extremely boring choice, and also not the correct one.
He just has first mover advantage.
Dalton most accurately captured Fleming's Bond.
I would have thought that, given your PB moniker, David Niven should be your choice
I am a fan of Daniel Craig, led to my original choice, but he went really weird in the last few years.
I think Barbara Brocolli was basically in love with him, and he ended up taking over and then essentially consuming the whole franchise.
She couldn't contemplate it without him, and was grieving - and I don't blame her, after 40 years of her life - so she was totally spent and sold out to Amazon.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
That’s where I am on it and it’s one of the problems I have with Reform
Prior to the locals where Reform won Durham I discussed with then candidate, now leader, Andrew Husband Net Zero and this was my position but he wouldn’t have it.
It was like they were dogmatically opposed to renewables in the same way others are dogmatically opposed to oil and gas.
If only he’d been in a position of power within a govt that could have stopped it.
The Conservatives biggest problem is that they simply didn't deliver for their supporters.
Triple lock, huge increase in BTL, and massive increase in health spending? They certainly did for some of their supporters - the focus was too narrow though, and they’ve created a Millenial generation scarred by private rentals, student loan debts and a huge spike in mortgage costs.
Massive increase in health spending?
Between 2010 and 2014, real-terms UK health spending experienced its lowest sustained growth period since the 1950s.
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
I think you are overestimating the cost to the economy of "Net Zero", not least because by 2040 there is net bdnefit to the conomy. See fig 4 here:
That is on top of the benefits in terms of energy independence, resilience, balance of payments etc.
I actually think we'll get to Net Zero without government interference, because the cost of renewables and batteries is droppinmg all the time.
So, what's the benefit of creating a culture war issue over this? I would spend government time and money on improving charging infrastructure, so that anyone can live with an electric car, even if they don't have offstreet parking.
It is Badenoch and Reform that are chasing the Culture War on this. Previous Conservative governments recognised that clean renewable energy is the future.
I went into the cinema with the same trepidation I had when I went to see The Fellowship of The Ring as I thought it was unfilmable/they wouldn’t be able to do it justice.
Boy was I wrong, my apologies to Sir Christopher Nolan and the cast and crew.
Go see it in IMAX.
TSE has just gone up in my estimation!
(I haven't seen the film BTW!)
Me neither and at nearly three hours I won’t be seeing it
The Revenant was okay but long enough
Optimum movie length, 100 minutes or so.
Last night I watched the timeless classic, ‘Watch your Stern’, perfect running time.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
I am not a big one for tagging, but perhaps @Mexicanpete could actually answer this one - especially considering it is not just Norwegian imports that the extra from the North Sea will displace, but Saudi, Qatari and US imports - and fecking Russian imports via India, that need to be liquified down and sent halfway across the world, with the requisite emissions?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
I’ll have a go, Lucky. I can give you answers that are likely true, though neither of us - being Thatcherite’s - will like the sound of all the answers.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world. Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
Nothing we do in terms of the North Sea will make one iota of difference to how much oil and gas we burn. That should be the criteria for whether any individual part of a net zero policy is sensible or not. Indeed shutting down the North Sea and importing oil and gas will make our emissions (if measured properly and including the extraction and transportation emissions) slightly worse than if we continue to use our own hydrocarbons during the transition.
When we have discussed this before, I think I recall you are favourable to UK having followed the Norway model long ago, for a majority national owned company bringing up the gas and oil for profits into a national sovereign wealth fund, rather than sell off of the north seas fossil fuels that actually happened. However, control, and how UK lost control seems topic debate at the moment, If the UK had taken that road instead, with all your tacit knowledge of the industry, in what ways would UK Oil and Gas industry have been different between 1986 and 2026? Would the difference for the UK gas and oil industry overall, and its workers in it, have been for the better or for the worse?
I'm not taking part in the Bond comparisons, but I will point out that The Living Daylights played to the team and Dalton's strengths and Licence To Kill played to their weaknesses. Dalton looked fantastic in TLD: well dressed even in casual clothing, good hair, fantastic in a suit, wicked chemistry with Maryam D'Abo. But in LTK things went wrong: Dalton's receding hairline was too obvious, they were trying to enter the era of strong female characters but didn't commit fully, so Carey Lowell (who'd trained up for the role) was asked to tone it down, they were competing with Miami Vice but without the flashy directing, good clothes, and thumping soundtrack. It has the bones of a good movie and Roberto Davi is an excellent villain, but the execution was bad, and lacking even the excuse of camp excess it came across as a made-for-TV movie.
Compare to Goldeneye later, which got everything right: the bad girl was sexy and scary, the clothes and direction excellent, the SFX adequate, it had style coming out of its arse. In LTK Dalton looked like he'd shopped with your dad.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
No he doesn't. He's a Johnsonian populist w@nker*.
* I would still vote to keep our right wing Governments, but Burnham is not my cup of tea.
Is "Burnham" an aptonym for someone whose environmental policies cause wildfires in Scotland and forest fires in Spain and America?
"Burnham" = burn 'em? Oh forget it.
How does extracting gas and burning it differ from buying the same gas extracted from the same field, from Norway?
Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?
“ Apart from the U.K. profits and resultant tax revenue?”
I understand where you say UK can help balance of payments a bit with some tax revenue, but can you explain “UK Profits?” I’ve understood till now there’s nothing under the North Sea UK owns.
A number of the companies seeking licenses are U.K. based. Even those that are not, would probably base operations in places such as Aberdeen, where there are existing facilities.
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote
Would be the one sensible plan he has proposed so far.
A move that would help him squeeze the Reform vote though not the Green vote, 56% of Reform voters opposed the ban on new North Sea oil and gas developments whereas 51% of Green voters backed it. Could help Labour in Scotland where 45% oppose the ban on new North Sea fossil fuel extraction with just 37% in favour (in England and Wales it is tied, 39% opposed, 38% in favour).
Trump would be pleased with Burnham on this too, as Trump backs new North Sea oil drills
Labour is losing Labour inclined voters to the Green party, it's not going to get Reform inclined voters to vote Labour by aping Reform but it will lose more votes to the Greens.
It's akin to the local veggie restaurant putting cheap burgers and fries on the menu to compete for McDonalds customers
You are demonstrating why this is a good move.
Labour losing Hamas fanatics to the Greens is not the worst thing in the world, so long as they can win the centre.
The centre is not going to a veggie restaurant. Let the Green lunatics prioritise veggie fanaticism, Labour needs a balance that can offer a broad church selection, including burger eaters, yes.
Have you noticed how much of that has quietly gone away the last couple of years?
I'm not a veggie but often opt for non-meat meals and in our city virtually every restaurant has plenty of vegetarian options so there is no need to go to a purely veggie restaurant anymore
I know the owner of the highest rated restaurant in town pretty well as we go there most weeks and he has told me that about 50% of people opt for non-meat main courses these days and that has been gradually rising over recent years,
Yeah, but that's both nonsense and bollocks.
Everyone I know who was "vegan", or even veggie in some instances, in recent years has now gone pescatarian or flexitarian. It's totally fallen back and has gone off the boil.
You've lost. Sorry.
The only change I have noticed in the last 2 years is everyone everywhere asking you if you have any allergies before each meal, of which there appear to be an explosion, but veganism has gone right out of fashion, plenty of such businesses have closed, and people neither order it nor talk about it much anymore.
People are now eating normal food again. Thank Christ.
I haven't "lost" anything, I'm not a veggie or a vegan so calm down. Veggies and Vegans haven't lost because their preferences are catered for almost everywhere now. Really not sure why what other people choose to eat winds you up so much but it obviously does.
There are loads of veggie and vegan options on menus everywhere these days and that didn't used to be the case a few years ago. A vegetarian or a vegan can go pretty much anywhere now and have a good choice of what to eat. Meat eating, and red-meat eating in particular has declined significantly over recent years.
Restaurants are market driven and will create menus that people want if they are going to stay in business - the days of Aberdeen Steak House and Angus Steak House have long gone.
If I dine out, I’m an Omnivore, I will gladly have a veggie starter or main from time to time. It’s just more choice and it targets more potential customers which hospitality needs at the moment.
We’re going to this tomorrow. Lots of veggie options. I’ll probably have a couple
A vote with 17% turnout is meaningless as far as the wider implications are concerned. We just don't know who the other 83% would support
It’s not the most significant election, no, but Reform are still winning elections and are still top of the polling. They are going to win the Clacton by-election and have somewhat distracted people from the £5 million. I just think we should be a little cautious about writing them off.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives are still copying Reform’s policy and rhetoric in many places, which also suggests that Reform-ism has a greater reach than just the one party.
Reform are sliding downwards, the £5million "gift" and subsequent financial scandals have holed Farage beneath the waterline and Reform without Farage are going nowhere. Weren't Reform going to be a shoe-in for the Manchester mayoralty once Burnham stood down? That's all gone quiet
I am not writing them off but the notion that they are going to win the next election has all but disappeared. Even being the largest party when nobody will form a coalition with them is pointless.
As for the Tories copying Reform's policies, the vast majority of voters don't know any of Reform's policies other than small boats and asylum seekers. Which other policies do you believe they have copied? The Tories are shrewd enough to keep their distance particularly as Farage becomes more toxic.
The other big Reform policy that the Tories have copied is opposing net zero. Badenoch has now made opposing net zero and leaving the ECHR as loyalty tests for Tory candidates. That doesn't look to me like being "shrewd enough to keep their distance".
Agree. Kemi needs clear blue water between the Tories and the far right. Both the Tories and Reform (SFAICS) are committed to not implementing net zero. But, and it's a big issue, it is not clear whether they differ on the fundamentals.
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
I think a perfectly sensible strategy on climate change is this: we will not seek to damage the economy on the altar of Net Zero. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be looking to both reduce emissions generally (health issues) and increase our reselience in the event of external supply shocks (see the impact of Ukraine and Iran on energy prices).
That’s where I am on it and it’s one of the problems I have with Reform
Prior to the locals where Reform won Durham I discussed with then candidate, now leader, Andrew Husband Net Zero and this was my position but he wouldn’t have it.
It was like they were dogmatically opposed to renewables in the same way others are dogmatically opposed to oil and gas.
We need both and we need to transition.
Oh, indeed.
It was perfectly rational to oppose adding solar to the grid when natural gas was 40 quid per MWh, and solar farms were 250.
It's much less rational when natural gas is coming in around 100 pounds, new nuclear is 120 (index linked, so only going in one direction), and solar is about 75.
If only he’d been in a position of power within a govt that could have stopped it.
The Conservatives biggest problem is that they simply didn't deliver for their supporters.
Triple lock, huge increase in BTL, and massive increase in health spending? They certainly did for some of their supporters - the focus was too narrow though, and they’ve created a Millenial generation scarred by private rentals, student loan debts and a huge spike in mortgage costs.
Massive increase in health spending?
Between 2010 and 2014, real-terms UK health spending experienced its lowest sustained growth period since the 1950s.
2010 doesn’t quite work as a baseline because the economy had tanked during that period, inflating the share of all public spending. The change from pre-recession to 2024 on a percentage of GDP basis was +30%.
I'm not taking part in the Bond comparisons, but I will point out that The Living Daylights played to the team and Dalton's strengths and Licence To Kill played to their weaknesses. Dalton looked fantastic in TLD: well dressed even in casual clothing, good hair, fantastic in a suit, wicked chemistry with Maryam D'Abo. But in LTK things went wrong: Dalton's receding hairline was too obvious, they were trying to enter the era of strong female characters but didn't commit fully, so Carey Lowell (who'd trained up for the role) was asked to tone it down, they were competing with Miami Vice but without the flashy directing, good clothes, and thumping soundtrack. It has the bones of a good movie and Roberto Davi is an excellent villain, but the execution was bad, and lacking even the excuse of camp excess it came across as a made-for-TV movie.
Compare to Goldeneye later, which got everything right: the bad girl was sexy and scary, the clothes and direction excellent, the SFX adequate, it had style coming out of its arse. In LTK Dalton looked like he'd shopped with your dad.
I think you are too harsh on License to Kill. I rewatched in a few months ago, and it's a genuinely good Bond movie - not least because it has a fabulous villain.
However, what it didn't get right was the seriousness-levity balance. It went all in on serious, and -except at the very end when the mystic retreat is going down in flames- there's barely a smile in the movie.
That said... it is also the movie where Benicio del Toro gets his break as a henchman, and he's great.
Comments
Dropped the nut on him.
“Nolan takes a different psychological turn for the very end of the film. Rather than reclaiming his throne, a gravely wounded Odysseus abdicates his power to his son and sails away into exile… at which point he realises he’s Mr Benn - and suddenly he’s back in a Gentleman’s Tailors…”
At least Philistines are wary of geeks baring their gifts.
I did very much enjoy The Return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLlcIfmqcPw
I understand where you say UK can help balance of payments a bit with some tax revenue, but can you explain “UK Profits?” I’ve understood till now there’s nothing under the North Sea UK owns.
I have plenty of complaints about Burnham, but playing to each audience like Johnson did is politically astute, certainly when Starmer was so incredibly poor at addressing his audiences.
“ BREAKING: Thomas Tuchel has vowed to use tonight’s game as the first step on the path to Euro 28 glory and has named the following team…
Pickford, D Henderson; Quansah, Konsa, Stones, Burn, Guehi, Chalobah, O’Reilly, Spence; J Henderson (c).”
https://x.com/brucemillington/status/2078406097535197569?s=61
So what is the starting 11?
Why is it so important to you that you actively prefer MORE emissions, just for the sake of making a twunt out of our country?
That same question can go to the rest of you too. Especially the ones who whine on and on about Norway's 'sovereign wealth fund' - how do you propose we get a sovereign wealth fund without generating some sovereign wealth?
* Astuteness doesn't come into it.
🔥 Russia’s “deep rear” logistics just got absolutely smoked by Ukrainian long-range strikes — Moscow & Tambov regions, drone component factories, and an oil facility turned into parking lots. Sea of Azov & Crimea got the mid-range special too.
Ukraine’s drone warriors don’t miss. Cry harder, Putin.
https://bsky.app/profile/joncooper-us.bsky.social/post/3mqwfolfxg22z
How the history of this will be written up, Englands failure to get into the final and win it will be defined - just as the comedy piece you posted - by who Tuchel didn’t take, and who he did take. And also the failure in the semi was 100% Tuchel’s mistake and even cowardice. However, in my opinion and that of my dad, when Argentina knuckled down to focus and show composure, they actually played top quality football, and that played a big part in our loss.
No one tipped England for the win before the tournament, media experts thought QF would be about it. What actually happened was semi finals was thanks to Jude Bellingham - if Jude broke his foot a week before the first game, topping the group and getting through last 32 and last 16 were not sure to have happened.
Apart from 90% of the games played during my sleep time, I thought it was fun though.
It says a lot about Labour that he has become PM in the first place.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
Living Daylights is also very very good. As is Spy Who Loved Me.
parecious
lateritious
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
@CPhilpOfficial
I heard that dozens of convenience stores, mobile phone shops and bazaars on Whitechapel Road in East London are sponsoring skilled worker visas.
I went there yesterday to investigate this scam.
https://x.com/CPhilpOfficial/status/2078476956408955219
@CPhilpOfficial
I heard that dozens of convenience stores, mobile phone shops and bazaars on Whitechapel Road in East London are sponsoring skilled worker visas.
I went there yesterday to investigate this scam.
https://x.com/CPhilpOfficial/status/2078476956408955219
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
That's as relevant today as ever.
First of all, UK does have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s just a bit naff compared to Norways and the Saudi’s. So to be able to do anything about that now, we get in a Time Machine, lock Lady Thatcher in a wardrobe so Jim Callaghan wins in 1979, ensure Tony Benns Labour Leadership 1980 coup, for a decade of socialism, that doesn’t sell off the North Sea instead copies Norway by setting up a 70% government owned company for extracting the gas and oil with most the profits go in a sovereign wealth fund - I understand it as a big hedge fund thing that sustains itself with investments all over the world.
Thatcherism didn’t get everything right. Sovereign wealth fund would have been better than sell off the oil and gas. That is saying it in hindsight though, as knowing afterwards many investors carpet bagged the sell offs, and mass share ownership and benefiting from dividends didn’t really happen on popular capitalism critical mass as hoped.
The Green Party noisy today about rumours of more North Sea drilling under Labour devastating the earths climate - but note the UK Net Zero target was not created and honed by Red Ed or Green Party and other climate Zealots, but by the Conservative Party. Created on the basis the choice isn’t fossil or green, the only right answer is both. It comes down to a question of pace of conversion, how much hair shirt to wear is the only argument here, because all nations of the world should be working on conversion from fossil fuels to green - even Trumps America - because the impact and injury from climate change, rising sea levels and population are not just global, but very localised at home too. And if you want to change the world you set it an example and give leadership - and it’s working brilliantly because dozens of countries contacted UK for the wording to make into their own laws and identical long term planning committees with businesses. Massive success story for the Conservatives from their 13 years in power.
Let’s do this the Yorkshire way Lucky, cut to the bottom line. The reason I am on board is - in the bigger picture, the long run in contrast where politics is so short termist focus on the next voting day - I fully believe fighting climate change now will be cheaper costs than not fighting it in the long run. Much much cheaper. So I am on board for it being not a climate argument, but an economic one. Whilst you are not on board for this reason?
Cubby Broccoli he is not; he worships money not Fleming.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/arsenious
Half-serious is hyphenated, but halfseriously isn’t
isn’t
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/halfseriously
(compliment!)
Reform have no policy on 'climate change'. They don't officially declare that it's real or a hoax. But the vibes indicate that it's a hoax - following Trump. It seems to me the Tories are too close to this position. The Tories are hoping to get away with a policy of not net zero (which is a popular retail policy for as long as the earth doesn't explode) and silent caution on whether the CO2 thingy is real.
They may of course get lucky. A couple of arctic winters and cool summers would sort it for now.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/caesious
Parecious - a variant spelling of paroecious
adjective
(of mosses and related plants) having the male and female reproductive organs at different levels on the same stem
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/parecious
Lateritious - adj - relating to or resembling brick in colour
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lateritious
I confess I didn’t know Bellingham so well or think much of him. I am now converted to a massive fan. Not just the best attacking midfielder in world football, but in the media interviews he oozed maturity, understanding and leadership. Wow!
Doesn't this sail dangerously close to the sub-judice issue we were discussing the other day? How the hell does someone get a fair trial when his picture has been splashed all across the newspapers/websites?
I’m pretty confident this ministry is going to be yet another dud.
Other S tier Bond movies are Casino Royale and Goldeneye.
I would put the two Dalton movies as upper A tier, with the first just missing out on S tier status because Whittaker was a rubbish baddie.
He just has first mover advantage.
Dalton most accurately captured Fleming's Bond.
There are loads of veggie and vegan options on menus everywhere these days and that didn't used to be the case a few years ago. A vegetarian or a vegan can go pretty much anywhere now and have a good choice of what to eat. Meat eating, and red-meat eating in particular has declined significantly over recent years.
Restaurants are market driven and will create menus that people want if they are going to stay in business - the days of Aberdeen Steak House and Angus Steak House have long gone.
Our financial sector is not, contrary to popular belief, grotesquely large - financial services are around 8% of our GDP, between Australia, Canada and America at 7% and Switzerland at 9%. Half of that 8% is domestic retail, so about 4% of our GDP is wholesale, and much of that was in markets such as insurance or foreign exchange trading, not directly affected by the financial crisis. It took staggering incompetence to transform a breakdown in regulation in that relatively small sector into a crisis of the sort we saw in 2008-10.
In 2007 Lamine Yamal's parents won a charity photoshoot at Barcelona in which 20-year-old Messi held their five-month-old baby.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5yejxqll3go
I ignore vegan for the purposes of this argument as I find the whole concept rather silly.
(I haven't seen the film BTW!)
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/
That is on top of the benefits in terms of energy independence, resilience, balance of payments etc.
That should be a classic Conservative household, aspirational and good vibes about being green.
Most of these were Edwardian, I think, where they invented names for all sorts of structures just to make the subject incomprehensible to the lay person.
Any guesses for what this is?
Genus:
Herbaceous perennial, leaves all basal, in rosette, simple, toothed, petiolate; capitula single on leafless stalks, radiate, with white to pink or red ligules and yellow disc flowers, or flore pleno, phyllaries in two rows, herbaceous, pappus.
Species:
Leaves obovate, irregularly serrate, stems procumbent to erect, leafless with 1 capitulum, capitula 12-25mm across. 2n=18.
So, what's the benefit of creating a culture war issue over this? I would spend government time and money on improving charging infrastructure, so that anyone can live with an electric car, even if they don't have offstreet parking.
I think Barbara Brocolli was basically in love with him, and he ended up taking over and then essentially consuming the whole franchise.
She couldn't contemplate it without him, and was grieving - and I don't blame her, after 40 years of her life - so she was totally spent and sold out to Amazon.
Prior to the locals where Reform won Durham I discussed with then candidate, now leader, Andrew Husband Net Zero and this was my position but he wouldn’t have it.
It was like they were dogmatically opposed to renewables in the same way others are dogmatically opposed to oil and gas.
We need both and we need to transition.
Between 2010 and 2014, real-terms UK health spending experienced its lowest sustained growth period since the 1950s.
The Revenant was okay but long enough
Optimum movie length, 100 minutes or so.
Last night I watched the timeless classic, ‘Watch your Stern’, perfect running time.
Compare to Goldeneye later, which got everything right: the bad girl was sexy and scary, the clothes and direction excellent, the SFX adequate, it had style coming out of its arse. In LTK Dalton looked like he'd shopped with your dad.
Philp is a poor Shadow Minister.
We’re going to this tomorrow. Lots of veggie options. I’ll probably have a couple
https://www.3rdbitefestival.co.uk/
It was perfectly rational to oppose adding solar to the grid when natural gas was 40 quid per MWh, and solar farms were 250.
It's much less rational when natural gas is coming in around 100 pounds, new nuclear is 120 (index linked, so only going in one direction), and solar is about 75.
"One Labour MP referred to the plans as “getting rid of the department of the future".
This is almost word for word Sir Humphrey's response when Jim Hacker talks about abolishing the Department for Education:
Humphrey: Abolish Education and Science?
Hacker: I'm only abolishing the department. Education and Science will flourish.
Humphrey: Without a government department? Impossible!
However, what it didn't get right was the seriousness-levity balance. It went all in on serious, and -except at the very end when the mystic retreat is going down in flames- there's barely a smile in the movie.
That said... it is also the movie where Benicio del Toro gets his break as a henchman, and he's great.