I have tried to get thru "Moby Dick", but nope: I peter out around page 78. I have a similar problem with "War of the Worlds". It's a sin not to finish a book, but I think I'll just have to live with it for those two.
That's rather a pity - Moby Dick really is one the most remarkable books in the English language. It totally defies pigeon-holing - it's not simply a novel, since a lot of is the thrilling factual account of how whaling used to be done, and some of the other chapters are long but always fascinating digressions on a bunch of other topics. I'd suggest persevering, it really is worth it!
War of the Worlds isn't in the same league but it a fun read.
Here's my favourite quotation from Moby Dick, which reminds me of a place I used to work. (It's also from the end of the book so shows that I'm clever and have read it.)
'Alike, joy and sorrow, hope and fear, seemed ground to finest dust, and powdered, for the time, in the clamped mortar of Ahab's iron soul. Like machines, they dumbly moved about the deck, ever conscious that the old man's despot eye was on them.'
To be honest, I always found him pretty weak in 'Lewis' - prone to mumbling his lines. As for his musicianship - I'm reminded of an open-mike night I once attended in a basement of a pub in Stoke Newington.
His "Hathaway" in Lewis is a performance of quite some woodenness - unless of course Hathaway is meant to be wooden in which case it's a performance of great distinction.
Either way, pity for me. I quite liked the programme at the time and will not now be able to watch any repeats.
Why not? I can understand having trouble watching something if it had later transpired a big player in it was convicted of a horrible crime or something, but for being gobby on QT?
I would be prepared to watch something if a big player had been convicted of a horrible crime, because they would have had their comeuppance. If I thought someone was vile, but they were widely admired by other people, then that would be a much bigger problem for me.
That said, he was a bit puerile on QT, no worse. He overstated his points, but so do lots of people. And while I disagree with his dismissal of racism as a factor in the Markle coverage, the audience-member was also wrong to dismiss his opinion as white male privilege. There've been plenty of worse guests.
The best things about the original Morse series were John Thaw's performance, the classical music, the theme tune and incidental music by Barrington Pheloung, the sweeping shots of the Oxfordshire countryside in summer and Morse's quoting Milton.
Yes, all of that. Although I agree with @AlastairMeeks that Endeavour is better.
Unfair criticism really, but Morse does suffer from being 'of its time'. For example, his relentless bullying of Lewis is a little uncomfortable to the modern eye.
Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.
Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.
That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.
Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?
I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).
I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!
If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.
We have to do our bit in England and Wales.
Edit: And so do the Lib Dems.
What do you propose the LibDems do in order to maximise non-Tory seats and what will Labour do to help?
1 Drop the immature childish and very negative refrain of 'To Keep the Tories Out'
2 Recognise that there is limited space for two left of centre parties in UK. To win a quantity of seats that will give relevance and power they will need to take seats from Labour and Tories.
3 Have a good leader. policies and rounded campaign.
4 Keep a massive distance from any promotion of tactical voting. It helps Labour far more than the LibDems. Generally speaking minor parties don't succeed by telling supporters to vote for another party. They can't be seen as Labours little helper any more than as the Tories little helper, if they want to progress.
5 Learn that Labour don't help them.
1. Most votes are 'to keep out' 2. Fair enough although quite difficult. 3. Fair enough. 4. I think you miss the point about tactical voting. Look at the Bar Charts ' Can't Win Here' 5. Labour aren't expected to help the LibDems, but a bit of enlightened self interest might have helped. E.G. why target Luciana Berger when Labour stood no chance there?
This is a spin off of the 'Never Kiss a Tory', 'Couldn't have a Tory as a friend' or the 'Anything but a Tory' lines we hear so often. The left love to demonise the other side. I don't think I have ever heard Couldn't Kiss a communist / socialist / Labour / or any other left leaning option.
To the majority who cohabit across the lines it is negative, stupid, immature and off putting. Who wants to vote for something based on prejudice and hate?
When the left grow up and realise we are all the same with very similar objectives but different routes to achieve them they will be in a better place to gain wider trust, more votes and maybe power.
I disagree with you here. I think that left and right have quite different objectives. It's not merely about the best methods to arrive at a similar destination. The destination (optimal society) differs markedly.
Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.
Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.
That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.
Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?
I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).
I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!
If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.
We have to do our bit in England and Wales.
Edit: And so do the Lib Dems.
What do you propose the LibDems do in order to maximise non-Tory seats and what will Labour do to help?
1 Drop the immature childish and very negative refrain of 'To Keep the Tories Out'
2 Recognise that there is limited space for two left of centre parties in UK. To win a quantity of seats that will give relevance and power they will need to take seats from Labour and Tories.
3 Have a good leader. policies and rounded campaign.
4 Keep a massive distance from any promotion of tactical voting. It helps Labour far more than the LibDems. Generally speaking minor parties don't succeed by telling supporters to vote for another party. They can't be seen as Labours little helper any more than as the Tories little helper, if they want to progress.
5 Learn that Labour don't help them.
1. Most votes are 'to keep out' 2. Fair enough although quite difficult. 3. Fair enough. 4. I think you miss the point about tactical voting. Look at the Bar Charts ' Can't Win Here' 5. Labour aren't expected to help the LibDems, but a bit of enlightened self interest might have helped. E.G. why target Luciana Berger when Labour stood no chance there?
Sorry if it doesn't read nicely. I've learnt the lesson - don't include text in angle brackets!
The Morse books are poorly written. In terms of prose style, I think they are as clunking as Agatha Christie at her very worst.
The best thing about John Thaw is his wonderful wife (now widow), Sheila Hancock.
For flu, there really is nothing better than PG Wodehouse.
Sense that people will be marking me down as low brow, therefore keen to stress that I agree with this. Colin Dexter was not IMO a great prose stylist.
The Morse books are poorly written. In terms of prose style, I think they are as clunking as Agatha Christie at her very worst.
The best thing about John Thaw is his wonderful wife (now widow), Sheila Hancock.
For flu, there really is nothing better than PG Wodehouse.
Sense that people will be marking me down as low brow, therefore keen to stress that I agree with this. Colin Dexter was not IMO a great prose stylist.
Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.
Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.
That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.
Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?
They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.
The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
Corbyn’s time as leader will be remembered for a very long time as an example of how a decent party in a largely decent tolerant country can so quickly succumb to the virus of evil racism, in this case, anti-semitism and how so many people who think of themselves as decent people can turn a blind eye to this, defend it or justify it.
He’ll have his place in history, don’t doubt that. It will simply be a shameful one.
I think history will remember him as a LOTO that both enabled and facilitated Brexit, holding office before and after just long enough to guarantee bringing it about.
1. Kes. 2. Bambi’s mother. 3. Ellie in Up. 4. The little boy in Marcelino, Pan y Vino - a film no-one will have heard of but was shown in Italy when I was a child. I cried buckets when I saw it.
Plus I also sob at the scene at the railway at the end of The Railway Station: the train disappearing, the steam, the girl standing there, then the cry of “Daddy, my Daddy!”
Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.
Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.
That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.
Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?
I am not an expert on Scotland, so I don't like to venture an opinion. (It would be interesting to hear from our Scottish posters if they think Labour could ever make a Scottish recovery).
I am just pointing out that Scotland is more important to the Labour Party than vice versa!
If I was voting for a Labour leader, I'd be interested to hear plans for a Scottish recovery.
Any candidate who thinks taking the battle to the SNP in Scotland should be a priority needs their head examined. We need to maximise non-Tory seats in parliament after the next GE. An SNP landslide enables a Labour government.
We have to do our bit in England and Wales.
Edit: And so do the Lib Dems.
What do you propose the LibDems do in order to maximise non-Tory seats and what will Labour do to help?
1 Drop the immature childish and very negative refrain of 'To Keep the Tories Out'
2 Recognise that there is limited space for two left of centre parties in UK. To win a quantity of seats that will give relevance and power they will need to take seats from Labour and Tories.
3 Have a good leader. policies and rounded campaign.
4 Keep a massive distance from any promotion of tactical voting. It helps Labour far more than the LibDems. Generally speaking minor parties don't succeed by telling supporters to vote for another party. They can't be seen as Labours little helper any more than as the Tories little helper, if they want to progress.
5 Learn that Labour don't help them.
5. Labour aren't expected to help the LibDems, but a bit of enlightened self interest might have helped. E.G. why target Luciana Berger when Labour stood no chance there?
The deliberate nature of that raises questions about what motivated those in charge. Cant remember what show in which it showed her shocked that labour had decided to pour in the constituency she was standing in on election day. By then Labour would have known without doubt they were 10,000 below what they got two years previous, and that it would only ever be a fight for second place.
What's going on with HS2 costs ? Do contractors just fill out how much their blank cheque should be for to the Government if they fancy doing some of the work for it ?
Actually, if I was voting for the Labour leadership, I'd probably be thinking hard about the North & even harder about Scotland.
Labour just can't get back into real contention without recovering some of their former Scottish citadels.
That seems to me to be key to Labour's future.
Jeremy queered their pitch to unionists by expressing support for another referendum. So where do they pick up voters?
They can forget about Scotland. It's gone.
The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
I think that's unlikely. Thatcher was in power for a decade and her influence - love it or hate it - was seismic. Corbyn will just be seen as a historical curiosity and memory of his time will quickly fade. No one's going to harbour any long-term grudges against Labour because of its brief bit of Jezza madness. However, what might happen is that northern voters, enjoying their newly found fame as unlikely Boris men, stick with the Tories simply to be awkward. Or they might go with 'Voted Tory once. Nivver again.' Who knows.
Corbyn’s time as leader will be remembered for a very long time as an example of how a decent party in a largely decent tolerant country can so quickly succumb to the virus of evil racism, in this case, anti-semitism and how so many people who think of themselves as decent people can turn a blind eye to this, defend it or justify it.
He’ll have his place in history, don’t doubt that. It will simply be a shameful one.
I think history will remember him as a LOTO that both enabled and facilitated Brexit, holding office before and after just long enough to guarantee bringing it about.
I think it will also be an example of how many years it takes to get the cancer out again, but no one is talking about that aspect yet.
The broader picture is that Labour in England may also be irrecoverable, at least in anything other than the very long term. The memory of the Corbyn episode could turn out to be as destructive in much of the old heartland as that of Thatcher was for the Tories for decades in Scotland and the mining communities, and they've nowhere else to go for an alternative supply of seats to make up the difference. The South-East won't suddenly discover a great enthusiasm for the North London Cult any time soon.
I disagree. If Labour can recover to circa 40% across GB, I would expect to see its vote share in Scotland back at 30% - particularly if the signs of division we are beginning to see in SNP ranks increase further. The point is also missed that Labour's GB share under Corbyn in 2019 was 33% - higher than the 31.2% won by Milliband in 2015. Moreover, Labour does hold 15 seats today which in 2015 returned Tory MPs - the traffic has not been one-way.
I agree with you that in these volatile times Labour has the potential to recover from the Corbyn period, but only if it refrains from placing two fingers in the face of the electorate by selecting the continuity Corbyn candidate and only if events for once work in the party's favour as they did after 1992.
The best way to recover in Scotland is for Labour to become competitive in the rest of GB, such that former Labour voters are persuaded that there is an alternative to the increasingly elusive SNP secession lifeboat as a means of escaping a Tory government. A major recovery in Scotland would need the SNP to vote down a minority Labour administration that failed to offer secession, which is not beyond the imagination and has occured previously.
On the scale of Labour's defeat, don't fall into the trap of denying it by reference to Labour's vote share alone rather than the margin of defeat. The salient point is that Corbyn lost badly in 2019 by finishing nearly 12% behind the Tories in an election in which the BXP failed to turn up. That isn't to deny that Miliband also lost badly in 2015 by finishing only (!) 7% behind the Tories, the reality is that both were lousy results for different reasons.
Laurence Fox, AFAIK, voted for Labour in 2017, so he can’t be that right wing. He changed his mind about Corbyn once he realised the perniciousness of the anti-semitism and Marxist ideology that surrounded him.
His offence has been to deny doctrine, and be totally unapologetic about it.
It’s actually rather disgusting to see so many people both inside and outwith the acting profession now try and damage his career as just punishment for that, and for other bystanders to take pleasure in it. Some of whom seem to be on here.
In any other walk of life this sort of vengeful mob rule would be considered fascistic behaviour. There are probably many more people in the acting profession who have sympathy with his point of view, but they daren’t open their mouths.
That’s where such behaviour leads us: it leads us to silence, which is precisely what the guardians of doctrine want.
The best things about the original Morse series were John Thaw's performance, the classical music, the theme tune and incidental music by Barrington Pheloung, the sweeping shots of the Oxfordshire countryside in summer and Morse's quoting Milton.
Yes, all of that. Although I agree with @AlastairMeeks that Endeavour is better.
Unfair criticism really, but Morse does suffer from being 'of its time'. For example, his relentless bullying of Lewis is a little uncomfortable to the modern eye.
Only if you are part of a tiny woke sect. For the vast majority of people it is a reflection of daily life and not particularly bullying at all. I do fear for such fragile minds that would find anything uncomfortable in Morse's behaviour towards Lewis.
Suggest you start with Michael Jackson as an example. His work is just about excluded from major Radio and TV output now. Jimmy Saville would be example number two. I agree with you, I have no interest in the output they generated whilst working.
If an artist is hard left, hard right, communist or fascist I am much more likely to take the output on the merit of the 'art' than the knowledge of the individuals views.
Same with religion. They can be any strain or none and it will not influence my opinion of the art or performance.
General point agreed. If it's just "views" it's easier to set aside.
But I don't think a comparison of Jackson and Savile is at all appropriate. One was a true global giant of popular entertainment - a genius really - and the other a fairly successful but in no way particularly significant DJ and TV presenter.
This is a spin off of the 'Never Kiss a Tory', 'Couldn't have a Tory as a friend' or the 'Anything but a Tory' lines we hear so often. The left love to demonise the other side. I don't think I have ever heard Couldn't Kiss a communist / socialist / Labour / or any other left leaning option.
To the majority who cohabit across the lines it is negative, stupid, immature and off putting. Who wants to vote for something based on prejudice and hate?
When the left grow up and realise we are all the same with very similar objectives but different routes to achieve them they will be in a better place to gain wider trust, more votes and maybe power.
I disagree with you here. I think that left and right have quite different objectives. It's not merely about the best methods to arrive at a similar destination. The destination (optimal society) differs markedly.
Yet more of the drip drip demonization. You try to portray yourself as a moderate but you really are an extremist fighting culture wars on all fronts.
This is a spin off of the 'Never Kiss a Tory', 'Couldn't have a Tory as a friend' or the 'Anything but a Tory' lines we hear so often. The left love to demonise the other side. I don't think I have ever heard Couldn't Kiss a communist / socialist / Labour / or any other left leaning option.
To the majority who cohabit across the lines it is negative, stupid, immature and off putting. Who wants to vote for something based on prejudice and hate?
When the left grow up and realise we are all the same with very similar objectives but different routes to achieve them they will be in a better place to gain wider trust, more votes and maybe power.
I disagree with you here. I think that left and right have quite different objectives. It's not merely about the best methods to arrive at a similar destination. The destination (optimal society) differs markedly.
Yet more of the drip drip demonization. You try to portray yourself as a moderate but you really are an extremist fighting culture wars on all fronts.
In the culture war you cant lie down. The attacks are everywhere on every front. If you dont push back they just push on forward like a Panzer division over a north african desert. And they dont stop when theyve passed you, they just carry on.
Suggest you start with Michael Jackson as an example. His work is just about excluded from major Radio and TV output now. Jimmy Saville would be example number two. I agree with you, I have no interest in the output they generated whilst working.
If an artist is hard left, hard right, communist or fascist I am much more likely to take the output on the merit of the 'art' than the knowledge of the individuals views.
Same with religion. They can be any strain or none and it will not influence my opinion of the art or performance.
General point agreed. If it's just "views" it's easier to set aside.
But I don't think a comparison of Jackson and Savile is at all appropriate. One was a true global giant of popular entertainment - a genius really - and the other a fairly successful but in no way particularly significant DJ and TV presenter.
Despite the allegations, Michael Jackson is still played a lot here in the US. of course, it's amusing to hear Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll" played here sometimes, years after he became anathema in the UK!
Suggest you start with Michael Jackson as an example. His work is just about excluded from major Radio and TV output now. Jimmy Saville would be example number two. I agree with you, I have no interest in the output they generated whilst working.
If an artist is hard left, hard right, communist or fascist I am much more likely to take the output on the merit of the 'art' than the knowledge of the individuals views.
Same with religion. They can be any strain or none and it will not influence my opinion of the art or performance.
General point agreed. If it's just "views" it's easier to set aside.
But I don't think a comparison of Jackson and Savile is at all appropriate. One was a true global giant of popular entertainment - a genius really - and the other a fairly successful but in no way particularly significant DJ and TV presenter.
Despite the allegations, Michael Jackson is still played a lot here in the US. of course, it's amusing to hear Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll" played here sometimes, years after he became anathema in the UK!
Indeed, it's at the centre of an Oscar nominated film!
Are you serious? I just watched his comments on Megan Markle, and even though I am a centrist I can't see anything particularly offensive? Some audience member said he didn't have a right to a point of view because he was white and male and he quite rightly put them down. Have I missed something else? Did he advocate eugenics or something? I think if I cut out watching or enjoying the arts that had people in them that I didn't agree with their personal political views I would have to stop listening to half the music I play and numerous films and plays. It would be like book burning ffs!
OK. The serious point I was trying to float was about separation of artist from their art. It's a subject I find fascinating. Obviously Hitler's watercolours would have been a better reference point than Laurence Fox's portrayal of Sergeant Hathaway, but I was straining (perhaps too hard) to stay topical. We can by all means move on.
To be fair, the masks might be partially to do with it being -2C in Richmond, VA right now, but yeah, probably not.
And of course, California didn't have any gun control laws to speak of until the Black Panthers started armed patrols in Oakland in the late 60's in response to police violence there. The NRA supported the new law.
Now it appears the pop-star and mindless provocateur Lily Allen has added her thoughts to the mix. Apparently without any sense of irony, the singer hit out at Fox over the weekend, and claimed that she was ‘sick to death of luvvies… forcing their opinions on everybody else’, especially when they ‘never have to deal with what normal people have to deal with’. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/six-times-lily-allen-could-have-stuck-to-singing/
The Morse Universe is tenth-rate writing & acting, wrapped up in gratuitous snobbery, archaisms and pretentiousness.
But the John Thaw lead performance is surely of merit. And I have always found the books a good read and indeed have all of them. They are oddly excellent for when laid up with the flu.
The Morse books are poorly written. In terms of prose style, I think they are as clunking as Agatha Christie at her very worst.
The best thing about John Thaw is his wonderful wife (now widow), Sheila Hancock.
For flu, there really is nothing better than PG Wodehouse.
Patrick O'Brien.
A nice easy read, but overrated. Nothing develops in the series, everyone is the same person in vol 15 as they are in vol 1 and it's all rather formulaic. It is customary to say how much better than Hornblower it all is, but look how Bush and Hornblower mature from teenage midshipmen to senior officers and how the relationship changes; Maturin/Aubrey, not so. And Bush is in with a shout in the affecting fictional death stakes, unlike anyone in O'Brien.
For those of us that do like Maturin/Aubrey and also like a bit of SciFi, can I recommend the RCN series by David Drake? He is quite open about being inspired by Maturin and Aubrey but he takes his plots from obscure bits of ancient and modern history.
Despite the allegations, Michael Jackson is still played a lot here in the US. of course, it's amusing to hear Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll" played here sometimes, years after he became anathema in the UK!
Yes, Gadd still earns big royalties from that one. Bigger than ever, I gather, due to use in US sporting venues.
Re MJ, I'm a big fan but I watched that doc with the 2 guys and I found it devastating. It has taken away some of the pleasure for me in his work. I don't YouTube him as much these days.
But stuff like this - well I mean. It must live on. It has to.
To be fair, the masks might be partially to do with it being -2C in Richmond, VA right now, but yeah, probably not.
And of course, California didn't have any gun control laws to speak of until the Black Panthers started armed patrols in Oakland in the late 60's in response to police violence there. The NRA supported the new law.
So the solution to gun control is to give black people sub machine guns until the NRA decide they are outgunned and seek legislation.
I can't see that idea going down well but it's probably the only way any sanity will occur in the US.
This is a spin off of the 'Never Kiss a Tory', 'Couldn't have a Tory as a friend' or the 'Anything but a Tory' lines we hear so often. The left love to demonise the other side. I don't think I have ever heard Couldn't Kiss a communist / socialist / Labour / or any other left leaning option.
To the majority who cohabit across the lines it is negative, stupid, immature and off putting. Who wants to vote for something based on prejudice and hate?
When the left grow up and realise we are all the same with very similar objectives but different routes to achieve them they will be in a better place to gain wider trust, more votes and maybe power.
I disagree with you here. I think that left and right have quite different objectives. It's not merely about the best methods to arrive at a similar destination. The destination (optimal society) differs markedly.
Yet more of the drip drip demonization. You try to portray yourself as a moderate but you really are an extremist fighting culture wars on all fronts.
An optimal society is not a term I would use. Optimal in whose view and optimal for whom?
In no particular order and not comprehensive: A society that is free to speak, watch, read and listen as it likes. Equality for sexes, sexual orientation, religions and workplace practices. A society where poverty is managed to minimal levels (I don't think it is possible to eridicate poverty, as a self destructive Human Nature can intervene). Health, Social Care and Education are sorted to be high quality and available to all. Environmental issues are acted on and our world is protected from polution. Housing and transport are fit for purpose and affordable. A safe community and working space with protection of those at work
Who on left or right is going to object to any of these? Certainly it will cover the centre and soft to mid left and right. There are idiots on the hard wings on both sides, they can squirm shout and scream as much as they like. I'm happy to overide them with the majority.
Views on ownership, taxation, delivery methods and government involvement will differ.
The goals don't. Both sides require a harmonious and functioning socity to be successful.
This crucial point seems to be missed in a lot of the discussion. The EU are not simply talking about product regulations as such (i.e. ensuring that goods sent to the EU conform to EU regulations), they are also going to insist on the 'level playing field' in environmental regulations, state aid, workers' rights etc. And they want a long-term solution, which means they will insist on some kind of dynamic alignment, which comes down to the UK accepting EU rules in many areas for ever. Not to mention the thorny question of who gets to adjudicate on any dispute.
All that Boris has done so far is postpone the reckoning for a few more months. In fact we are probably further from an agreement on trade than we were under Theresa May.
Lord only knows how Boris thinks he's going to get this sorted in 10 months. Someone has to get shafted - either his supporters in the Commons or his new-found voters (and the economy in general).
Irish foreign min Simon Coveney has warned that the EU will not agree to a free trade agreement with the UK unless it signs up to “equivalence” in the way goods are produced in the UK and the EU.
Hercule Poirot once commented that he had had a case where a clue had been four foot long rather than four centimetres and as a result no one would believe in it. Things that are not newsworthy are still important.
Irish foreign min Simon Coveney has warned that the EU will not agree to a free trade agreement with the UK unless it signs up to “equivalence” in the way goods are produced in the UK and the EU.
Equivalence is definitional in this context, meaning the question of whether a third country’s regulatory regime for a particular product or group of products meets EU standards and, therefore, whether the latter can be permitted to be sold to EU buyers.
Unless Coveney intended to mean that equalivence in one product type (say agriculture) would be required for access for another (say financial services), his statement is not controversial.
This crucial point seems to be missed in a lot of the discussion. The EU are not simply talking about product regulations as such (i.e. ensuring that goods sent to the EU conform to EU regulations), they are also going to insist on the 'level playing field' in environmental regulations, state aid, workers' rights etc. And they want a long-term solution, which means they will insist on some kind of dynamic alignment, which comes down to the UK accepting EU rules in many areas for ever. Not to mention the thorny question of who gets to adjudicate on any dispute.
All that Boris has done so far is postpone the reckoning for a few more months. In fact we are probably further from an agreement on trade than we were under Theresa May.
Lord only knows how Boris thinks he's going to get this sorted in 10 months. Someone has to get shafted - either his supporters in the Commons or his new-found voters (and the economy in general).
So, we'll be rule-takers with no influence on the rules and worse off financially too. Still, not too late for the U-Turn of the century ;-).
My brother was on the picket lines for that and my dad was breaking them. Still a sensitive topic even now. Never mentioned over the turkey and cranberry sauce.
Despite the allegations, Michael Jackson is still played a lot here in the US. of course, it's amusing to hear Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll" played here sometimes, years after he became anathema in the UK!
Yes, Gadd still earns big royalties from that one. Bigger than ever, I gather, due to use in US sporting venues.
Re MJ, I'm a big fan but I watched that doc with the 2 guys and I found it devastating. It has taken away some of the pleasure for me in his work. I don't YouTube him as much these days.
But stuff like this - well I mean. It must live on. It has to.
This is a spin off of the 'Never Kiss a Tory', 'Couldn't have a Tory as a friend' or the 'Anything but a Tory' lines we hear so often. The left love to demonise the other side. I don't think I have ever heard Couldn't Kiss a communist / socialist / Labour / or any other left leaning option.
To the majority who cohabit across the lines it is negative, stupid, immature and off putting. Who wants to vote for something based on prejudice and hate?
When the left grow up and realise we are all the same with very similar objectives but different routes to achieve them they will be in a better place to gain wider trust, more votes and maybe power.
I disagree with you here. I think that left and right have quite different objectives. It's not merely about the best methods to arrive at a similar destination. The destination (optimal society) differs markedly.
Yet more of the drip drip demonization. You try to portray yourself as a moderate but you really are an extremist fighting culture wars on all fronts.
How is it 'demonisation' to say that left and right have different objectives (whether you agree or not)?
Irish foreign min Simon Coveney has warned that the EU will not agree to a free trade agreement with the UK unless it signs up to “equivalence” in the way goods are produced in the UK and the EU.
Equivalence is definitional in this context, meaning the question of whether a third country’s regulatory regime for a particular product or group of products meets EU standards and, therefore, whether the latter can be permitted to be sold to EU buyers.
Unless Coveney intended to mean that equalivence in one product type (say agriculture) would be required for access for another (say financial services), his statement is not controversial.
My brother was on the picket lines for that and my dad was breaking them. Still a sensitive topic even now. Never mentioned over the turkey and cranberry sauce.
Only if you are part of a tiny woke sect. For the vast majority of people it is a reflection of daily life and not particularly bullying at all. I do fear for such fragile minds that would find anything uncomfortable in Morse's behaviour towards Lewis.
OK. But I do clench my buttocks when it happens. And I think the reason is not so much that bullying isn't a part of daily life - it is - but that in this case it's portrayed from the viewpoint of the bully. So the viewer is invited to join in, so to speak. That is what I find slightly uncomfortable. The same thing - and much much worse - with Basil constantly belittling Manuel, even hitting him on occasions. I love Fawlty Towers, I think it's one of the great sitcoms, but I would prefer it without the abuse of Manuel. It's clear he needs the job, perhaps has not got his papers and so could not get another one, and is therefore powerless. And yet when Basil smacks him on the head with a spoon it is presented in a way whereby we laugh at the victim and with the person doing the victimizing.
This crucial point seems to be missed in a lot of the discussion. The EU are not simply talking about product regulations as such (i.e. ensuring that goods sent to the EU conform to EU regulations), they are also going to insist on the 'level playing field' in environmental regulations, state aid, workers' rights etc. And they want a long-term solution, which means they will insist on some kind of dynamic alignment, which comes down to the UK accepting EU rules in many areas for ever. Not to mention the thorny question of who gets to adjudicate on any dispute.
All that Boris has done so far is postpone the reckoning for a few more months. In fact we are probably further from an agreement on trade than we were under Theresa May.
Lord only knows how Boris thinks he's going to get this sorted in 10 months. Someone has to get shafted - either his supporters in the Commons or his new-found voters (and the economy in general).
Boris's legendary chutzpah combined with the enormous power he now wields probably means he can just go ahead and shaft the Leavers whilst pretending that he hasn't. Who'd actually complain? Nigel? The rest will be either too blinded by Boris worship or too ashamed to admit they were duped. Boris will be fine.
Anyone notice Parasite got the SAG award for best ensemble ?
Might be a decent outside bet for the best picture Oscar, as around 50% winning the former have gone on to win the latter.
Good movie, too.
Sadly I expect The Irishman to clean up and get best picture and best director. What a waste of three hours and change of my life.
Disliking The Irishman is rapidly becoming a PB Tory shibboleth, just like disliking the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
I'm not a Tory. I just think The Irishman, while it certainly had its moments, was just far, far, far too long. Cut it down to two hours or less, and hire other actors to play the young characters instead of piss-poor CGI, and it would have been a decent flick.
A developing theme. I've not been keeping up, what's the latest bullshit excuse for delaying the report into Russian political interference in UK politics?
Yet more of the drip drip demonization. You try to portray yourself as a moderate but you really are an extremist fighting culture wars on all fronts.
I definitely don't demonize people. I would never do that. And I'm surprised you don't agree with my point here. Do YOU think the end objectives of left and right are the same? I'm just giving my honest opinion that they are not. Surely the sort of economy and society which somebody like Jacob Rees Mogg wishes to see realized is very different to that of somebody like Barry Gardiner?
Only if you are part of a tiny woke sect. For the vast majority of people it is a reflection of daily life and not particularly bullying at all. I do fear for such fragile minds that would find anything uncomfortable in Morse's behaviour towards Lewis.
OK. But I do clench my buttocks when it happens. And I think the reason is not so much that bullying isn't a part of daily life - it is - but that in this case it's portrayed from the viewpoint of the bully. So the viewer is invited to join in, so to speak. That is what I find slightly uncomfortable. The same thing - and much much worse - with Basil constantly belittling Manuel, even hitting him on occasions. I love Fawlty Towers, I think it's one of the great sitcoms, but I would prefer it without the abuse of Manuel. It's clear he needs the job, perhaps has not got his papers and so could not get another one, and is therefore powerless. And yet when Basil smacks him on the head with a spoon it is presented in a way whereby we laugh at the victim and with the person doing the victimizing.
Isn't it about separating reality and fiction?
I'm not sure I have ever met anyone who transposes things like Fawlty Towers into reality or would contemplate transferal of the actions into real life.
Basil is a sad and comic individual, not one you would aspire to emulate. If we deny ourselves fiction we deny escape, humour, happiness and so much more.
This crucial point seems to be missed in a lot of the discussion. The EU are not simply talking about product regulations as such (i.e. ensuring that goods sent to the EU conform to EU regulations), they are also going to insist on the 'level playing field' in environmental regulations, state aid, workers' rights etc. And they want a long-term solution, which means they will insist on some kind of dynamic alignment, which comes down to the UK accepting EU rules in many areas for ever. Not to mention the thorny question of who gets to adjudicate on any dispute.
All that Boris has done so far is postpone the reckoning for a few more months. In fact we are probably further from an agreement on trade than we were under Theresa May.
Lord only knows how Boris thinks he's going to get this sorted in 10 months. Someone has to get shafted - either his supporters in the Commons or his new-found voters (and the economy in general).
Boris's legendary chutzpah combined with the enormous power he now wields probably means he can just go ahead and shaft the Leavers whilst pretending that he hasn't. Who'd actually complain? Nigel? The rest will be either too blinded by Boris worship or too ashamed to admit they were duped. Boris will be fine.
Watch the reshuffle. My take: if Boris keeps the Brexiteers in the Cabinet then he is planning BINO, for which he needs political cover with JRM et al inside and pissing outwards.
Boris's legendary chutzpah combined with the enormous power he now wields probably means he can just go ahead and shaft the Leavers whilst pretending that he hasn't. Who'd actually complain? Nigel? The rest will be either too blinded by Boris worship or too ashamed to admit they were duped. Boris will be fine.
Maybe. It certainly worked for the Withdrawal Agreement.
Anyone notice Parasite got the SAG award for best ensemble ?
Might be a decent outside bet for the best picture Oscar, as around 50% winning the former have gone on to win the latter.
Good movie, too.
Sadly I expect The Irishman to clean up and get best picture and best director. What a waste of three hours and change of my life.
Disliking The Irishman is rapidly becoming a PB Tory shibboleth, just like disliking the tube scene in Darkest Hour.
I'm not a Tory. I just think The Irishman, while it certainly had its moments, was just far, far, far too long. Cut it down to two hours or less, and hire other actors to play the young characters instead of piss-poor CGI, and it would have been a decent flick.
Why not? I can understand having trouble watching something if it had later transpired a big player in it was convicted of a horrible crime or something, but for being gobby on QT?
Have tried to clarify the rules around this in my reply to @TOPPING - in a nutshell, you are quite right, Fox is no monster, therefore it's a marginal thing whether I watch repeats of Lewis or not. If I was a massive fan of the prog I probably would despite Fox. But I only quite like it - i.e. it will not make much difference to me either way, so Fox just tilts the balance in favour of not watch.
Are you serious? I just watched his comments on Megan Markle, and even though I am a centrist I can't see anything particularly offensive? Some audience member said he didn't have a right to a point of view because he was white and male and he quite rightly put them down. Have I missed something else? Did he advocate eugenics or something? I think if I cut out watching or enjoying the arts that had people in them that I didn't agree with their personal political views I would have to stop listening to half the music I play and numerous films and plays. It would be like book burning ffs!
"It would be like book burning ffs!"
Yes, it would. Completely agree with you. But it is the direction we seem to be heading; people judge others solely on whether they support "their team". Sad.
Indeed. If you look at polling stuff in the states, it's divided into "liberal" and "conservative" pollsters, which is insane. Laurence Fox is a private citizen and is allowed to hold whatever damn views he wishes. It would be different if he was working for a political party or campaigning for one, but he isn't so it isn't. As I keep saying: I'm beginning to really dislike the 21st century...
How is it 'demonisation' to say that left and right have different objectives (whether you agree or not)?
Yes, I was a bit thrown there! I think Richard was referencing what he considers the lefty demonizing of Laurence Fox. And the Culture War does get a bit silly at times, I agree, but you have to hold your end up.
A developing theme. I've not been keeping up, what's the latest bullshit excuse for delaying the report into Russian political interference in UK politics?
This. Key point. I have been muttering this to various friends and family in recent weeks.
But if people in 2050 are still taking an hour to get from Leeds to Manchester, they might wonder why their line wasn't upgraded, and then be miffed to hear that all of the railway infrastructure budget was pissed away on a vanity project.
This. Key point. I have been muttering this to various friends and family in recent weeks.
What else could be done with £106 billion? Rather a lot, I suggest, and potentially of much greater use.
Surely the big question is why on earth is it so ridiculously expensive? I appreciate that there are good reasons why land acquisition in this country is expensive, but even allowing for that, the figure just seems beyond reason. France seems to be able to manage to do high-speed rail projects for much less than HS2 is projected to cost.
The Mandy Rice-Davies defence applies, sure, but really I think they do have a point.
We need the capacity. The key though is to link the line at St Pancras, saving £200m to have an isolated line that stops 500yards away at Euston is a nonsense. The new HS line needs to be connected directly to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
This. Key point. I have been muttering this to various friends and family in recent weeks.
What else could be done with £106 billion? Rather a lot, I suggest, and potentially of much greater use.
Surely the big question is why on earth is it so ridiculously expensive? I appreciate that there are good reasons why land acquisition in this country is expensive, but even allowing for that, the figure just seems beyond reason. France seems to be able to manage to do high-speed rail projects for much less than HS2 is projected to cost.
Option A: someone somewhere is looking to make a killing. Option B: someone somewhere is looking to kill the project.
As it happens, I'm just pulling into Manchester Piccadilly after an entirely satisfactory journey of just over 2 hours and I've been able to work all the way. So you can put me down as a sceptic.
This. Key point. I have been muttering this to various friends and family in recent weeks.
Not much of a point at all because exactly the same would be true of a spaffing money up the wall infrastructure project like, had it been built, the garden bridge; even crap infrastructure projects are not "unsuccessful" - people would use the bridge to cross the Thames, provided it didn't fall down.
The Mandy Rice-Davies defence applies, sure, but really I think they do have a point.
We need the capacity. The key though is to link the line at St Pancras, saving £200m to have an isolated line that stops 500yards away at Euston is a nonsense. The new HS line needs to be connected directly to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
Why not? I can understand having trouble watching something if it had later transpired a big player in it was convicted of a horrible crime or something, but for being gobby on QT?
Have tried to clarify the rules around this in my reply to @TOPPING - in a nutshell, you are quite right, Fox is no monster, therefore it's a marginal thing whether I watch repeats of Lewis or not. If I was a massive fan of the prog I probably would despite Fox. But I only quite like it - i.e. it will not make much difference to me either way, so Fox just tilts the balance in favour of not watch.
Are you serious? I just watched his comments on Megan Markle, and even though I am a centrist I can't see anything particularly offensive? Some audience member said he didn't have a right to a point of view because he was white and male and he quite rightly put them down. Have I missed something else? Did he advocate eugenics or something? I think if I cut out watching or enjoying the arts that had people in them that I didn't agree with their personal political views I would have to stop listening to half the music I play and numerous films and plays. It would be like book burning ffs!
"It would be like book burning ffs!"
Yes, it would. Completely agree with you. But it is the direction we seem to be heading; people judge others solely on whether they support "their team". Sad.
Indeed. If you look at polling stuff in the states, it's divided into "liberal" and "conservative" pollsters, which is insane. Laurence Fox is a private citizen and is allowed to hold whatever damn views he wishes. It would be different if he was working for a political party or campaigning for one, but he isn't so it isn't. As I keep saying: I'm beginning to really dislike the 21st century...
We have a comparison. Emma Thompson upset right leaning people recently with her views on climate change, did they coincidentally decide she was a bad actress as well at the time? Maybe they did, & it works both ways. I thought she was criticised for hypocrisy more than anything else
On current Irish polls Coveney may not be Irish Foreign Minister next month, we may not get a Canada plus style FTA including services without regulatory alignment and equivalence but no reason we cannot get a basic deal for goods that minimises tariffs
On the EU they seem to think they can stymie our future relationships and prevent us competing against them.
I suspect they are in for a surprise when Boris says 'non', otherwise there is no point in leaving
On HS2 it needs to be built including the northern connections as well as Manchester -Leeds.
Time for Boris to make decisions, though I suspect he will not do anything before the 1st February
It does not need to be built. It is a massive white elephant and the sooner it is shot the better.
It needs to be built for capacity reasons on the east and west coast mainlines.
The problem is that it wasn't sold as that and it's frankly embarrassing considering Turkey and Italy have both built new lines capacity lines in less time than HS2 has been in planning.
The best things about the original Morse series were John Thaw's performance, the classical music, the theme tune and incidental music by Barrington Pheloung, the sweeping shots of the Oxfordshire countryside in summer and Morse's quoting Milton.
Yes, all of that. Although I agree with @AlastairMeeks that Endeavour is better.
Unfair criticism really, but Morse does suffer from being 'of its time'. For example, his relentless bullying of Lewis is a little uncomfortable to the modern eye.
I find this point of view interesting. I don't really see our society today as being much more enlightened than it was in the 1990's, or the 1950's, or the 1850's, or the 1550's. It just has its own characteristical fashions and mores, as those eras did. I get annoyed by the opposite trend, the tendency of today's TV adaptations to take period literature and deliver a homily on how ghastly and wrong everyone was in those days. It's distracting.
Comments
'Alike, joy and sorrow, hope and fear, seemed ground to finest dust, and powdered, for the time, in the clamped mortar of Ahab's iron soul. Like machines, they dumbly moved about the deck, ever conscious that the old man's despot eye was on them.'
That said, he was a bit puerile on QT, no worse. He overstated his points, but so do lots of people. And while I disagree with his dismissal of racism as a factor in the Markle coverage, the audience-member was also wrong to dismiss his opinion as white male privilege. There've been plenty of worse guests.
Unfair criticism really, but Morse does suffer from being 'of its time'. For example, his relentless bullying of Lewis is a little uncomfortable to the modern eye.
2. Fair enough although quite difficult.
3. Fair enough.
4. I think you miss the point about tactical voting. Look at the Bar Charts ' Can't Win Here'
5. Labour aren't expected to help the LibDems, but a bit of enlightened self interest might have helped. E.G. why target Luciana Berger when Labour stood no chance there?
The best way to recover in Scotland is for Labour to become competitive in the rest of GB, such that former Labour voters are persuaded that there is an alternative to the increasingly elusive SNP secession lifeboat as a means of escaping a Tory government. A major recovery in Scotland would need the SNP to vote down a minority Labour administration that failed to offer secession, which is not beyond the imagination and has occured previously.
On the scale of Labour's defeat, don't fall into the trap of denying it by reference to Labour's vote share alone rather than the margin of defeat. The salient point is that Corbyn lost badly in 2019 by finishing nearly 12% behind the Tories in an election in which the BXP failed to turn up. That isn't to deny that Miliband also lost badly in 2015 by finishing only (!) 7% behind the Tories, the reality is that both were lousy results for different reasons.
His offence has been to deny doctrine, and be totally unapologetic about it.
It’s actually rather disgusting to see so many people both inside and outwith the acting profession now try and damage his career as just punishment for that, and for other bystanders to take pleasure in it. Some of whom seem to be on here.
In any other walk of life this sort of vengeful mob rule would be considered fascistic behaviour. There are probably many more people in the acting profession who have sympathy with his point of view, but they daren’t open their mouths.
That’s where such behaviour leads us: it leads us to silence, which is precisely what the guardians of doctrine want.
https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1219266675520016384?s=20
But I don't think a comparison of Jackson and Savile is at all appropriate. One was a true global giant of popular entertainment - a genius really - and the other a fairly successful but in no way particularly significant DJ and TV presenter.
And of course, California didn't have any gun control laws to speak of until the Black Panthers started armed patrols in Oakland in the late 60's in response to police violence there. The NRA supported the new law.
... Independence has to go away as an issue, either because Scotland becomes independent or the consensus switches to the Union.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/six-times-lily-allen-could-have-stuck-to-singing/
Re MJ, I'm a big fan but I watched that doc with the 2 guys and I found it devastating. It has taken away some of the pleasure for me in his work. I don't YouTube him as much these days.
But stuff like this - well I mean. It must live on. It has to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3t9-kf7ZNA
I can't see that idea going down well but it's probably the only way any sanity will occur in the US.
In no particular order and not comprehensive:
A society that is free to speak, watch, read and listen as it likes.
Equality for sexes, sexual orientation, religions and workplace practices.
A society where poverty is managed to minimal levels (I don't think it is possible to eridicate poverty, as a self destructive Human Nature can intervene).
Health, Social Care and Education are sorted to be high quality and available to all.
Environmental issues are acted on and our world is protected from polution.
Housing and transport are fit for purpose and affordable.
A safe community and working space with protection of those at work
Who on left or right is going to object to any of these? Certainly it will cover the centre and soft to mid left and right. There are idiots on the hard wings on both sides, they can squirm shout and scream as much as they like. I'm happy to overide them with the majority.
Views on ownership, taxation, delivery methods and government involvement will differ.
The goals don't. Both sides require a harmonious and functioning socity to be successful.
All that Boris has done so far is postpone the reckoning for a few more months. In fact we are probably further from an agreement on trade than we were under Theresa May.
Lord only knows how Boris thinks he's going to get this sorted in 10 months. Someone has to get shafted - either his supporters in the Commons or his new-found voters (and the economy in general).
Unless Coveney intended to mean that equalivence in one product type (say agriculture) would be required for access for another (say financial services), his statement is not controversial.
32-20 on the latest poll.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/equivalence-for-fish-err-thats-not-a-deal/
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1219163903562801154
A developing theme.
I've not been keeping up, what's the latest bullshit excuse for delaying the report into Russian interference in UK politics?
Do rail users really want this? Does Johnson want to risk the answer?
I'm not sure I have ever met anyone who transposes things like Fawlty Towers into reality or would contemplate transferal of the actions into real life.
Basil is a sad and comic individual, not one you would aspire to emulate. If we deny ourselves fiction we deny escape, humour, happiness and so much more.
This. Key point. I have been muttering this to various friends and family in recent weeks.
https://screenrant.com/martin-scorsese-longest-movies-runtimes/
And both are probably telling the truth.
And most of the freight runs at night, when there are only a couple of sleeper services to worry about.
We need the capacity. The key though is to link the line at St Pancras, saving £200m to have an isolated line that stops 500yards away at Euston is a nonsense. The new HS line needs to be connected directly to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
Option B: someone somewhere is looking to kill the project.
As it happens, I'm just pulling into Manchester Piccadilly after an entirely satisfactory journey of just over 2 hours and I've been able to work all the way. So you can put me down as a sceptic.
I suspect they are in for a surprise when Boris says 'non', otherwise there is no point in leaving
On HS2 it needs to be built including the northern connections as well as Manchester -Leeds.
Time for Boris to make decisions, though I suspect he will not do anything before the 1st February
The problem is that it wasn't sold as that and it's frankly embarrassing considering Turkey and Italy have both built new lines capacity lines in less time than HS2 has been in planning.