Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sabisky decides to go of his own accord

24

Comments

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    Cyclefree said:

    I have never ever watched any of the shows you guys are mentioning. Apart from Fleabag which I loved. When do you all find the time to watch all this TV, I’d like to know.

    Where do you find all the time to tend your garden, post on here and write thread headers?

    We all choose to use our free time in different ways.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910
    isam said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    My Mum's cousin did the titles for the David Suchet one
    Art Deco. I do approve.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer says Labour needs to regain its 'message of opportunity'

    I would have said a ‘message of sanity’ would be a better starting point.
    Let's face it none of the candidates are neither use nor ornament. That said RLB is by far the worst. Compare and contrast this bun fight with last year's Tory leadership contest. If that was Premier League this is by comparison Hackney Marshes Sunday League.
    And let’s face it, that was hardly a talent show either.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    ydoethur said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Dad’s Army ran to 80, and until the final eight the quality remained high.
    I thought Fawlty Towers finished because John Cleese split with Polly (sorry awful to forget her name).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    isam said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    My Mum's cousin did the titles for the David Suchet one
    Bravo. They are superb.

    I love art deco.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,473
    edited February 17

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    Yes, but he's filmed all the stories, so now what? We've had definitive interpretations: Jeremy Brett as Sherlock, Joan Hickson as Marple, David Suchet as Poirot. We've gone about as far as we can go with that approach, so newer more freewheeling interpretations are indicated.

    Plus the fact that we are talking about the series proves the point. Both you and I saw the BBC Malkovich Poirot, so we can discuss it, but if I started talking about the stuff I watch on YouTube, you'd look at me as if I were mental. The BBC, for good or ill, provides a common base about which we can speak. If we go down the destroy-BBC-and-get-news-from-whoever we'll end up shouting past each other, just like they do in the States.

    Common institutions are necessary for the cohesion of the nation. Take them away and we're strangers in the same space... :(
    Do something else.

    It's pointless trying to remake Poirot. It can't be bettered.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,856
    edited February 17
    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    "Stewardess? Oh, stewardess? What is the in-flight movie today?"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    ydoethur said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Dad’s Army ran to 80, and until the final eight the quality remained high.
    I thought Fawlty Towers finished because John Cleese split with Polly (sorry awful to forget her name).
    Connie Booth.

    But I think they had decided to finish at 12 before they split.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340


    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    Yes, but he's filmed all the stories, so now what? We've had definitive interpretations: Jeremy Brett as Sherlock, Joan Hickson as Marple, David Suchet as Poirot. We've gone about as far as we can go with that approach, so newer more freewheeling interpretations are indicated.

    Plus the fact that we are talking about the series proves the point. Both you and I saw the BBC Malkovich Poirot, so we can discuss it, but if I started talking about the stuff I watch on YouTube, you'd look at me as if I were mental. The BBC, for good or ill, provides a common base about which we can speak. If we go down the destroy-BBC-and-get-news-from-whoever we'll end up shouting past each other, just like they do in the States.

    Common institutions are necessary for the cohesion of the nation. Take them away and we're strangers in the same space... :(
    I think it's fine to being something new to the source material - Finney, Suchet and Ustinov did that. But Malcovich can't do accents. He even sends this up himself in Jonny English. I can't watch something purporting to be serious drama where the lead character sounds like Gordon Kaye.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Don’t forget the US TV market has a LOT more money than ours.
    (And half of those you cite are pretty awful, IMO & FWIW)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Curb Your Enthusiasm is amazing too.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,639

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Cheers + Frasier is c.550 episodes. All of extraordinary quality, bar the last series or two of Frasier.
  • glwglw Posts: 6,035
    edited February 17

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,344
    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Probs should have chosen Kinnock or Smith, not Blair, still helped Labour fight back from a big defeat
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Cyclefree said:

    I have never ever watched any of the shows you guys are mentioning. Apart from Fleabag which I loved. When do you all find the time to watch all this TV, I’d like to know.

    Where do you find all the time to tend your garden, post on here and write thread headers?

    We all choose to use our free time in different ways.
    I was not being snippy. It was a genuine question. I am no longer working full-time so that is where I find the time.

    When I was working full-time and had young children, I was not on here (or anywhere else) wrote no headers, did hardly any gardening as it was mostly lawn and paddling pool, and still had no TV watching time, beyond Disney videos, Wallace and Gromit and Postman Pat. In fact for about 20 years I had no free time at all.

    Perhaps it’s a working mother thing ...... :smile:
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    Nigelb said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Don’t forget the US TV market has a LOT more money than ours.
    (And half of those you cite are pretty awful, IMO & FWIW)
    Arguably that's because they make more episodes. They find a good thing and milk it. It can't cost so much more to get episodes in the can - there must be economies of repetition. Friends for example they were just larking around in the same cheap sets for the most part.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited February 17
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    Yes, but he's filmed all the stories, so now what? We've had definitive interpretations: Jeremy Brett as Sherlock, Joan Hickson as Marple, David Suchet as Poirot. We've gone about as far as we can go with that approach, so newer more freewheeling interpretations are indicated.

    Plus the fact that we are talking about the series proves the point. Both you and I saw the BBC Malkovich Poirot, so we can discuss it, but if I started talking about the stuff I watch on YouTube, you'd look at me as if I were mental. The BBC, for good or ill, provides a common base about which we can speak. If we go down the destroy-BBC-and-get-news-from-whoever we'll end up shouting past each other, just like they do in the States.

    Common institutions are necessary for the cohesion of the nation. Take them away and we're strangers in the same space... :(
    Yes, completely agree
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319

    isam said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    My Mum's cousin did the titles for the David Suchet one
    Bravo. They are superb.

    I love art deco.
    Agree, they're brilliant.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited February 17
    ydoethur said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Dad’s Army ran to 80, and until the final eight the quality remained high.
    The funniest thing about Dads Army was the Viz parody of a tabloid article saying the show was cursed, as 90% the cast had died within a decade of the last series
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 2,562

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    Really? Or did you just enjoy how much the 'gammon' tendency was infuriated by it? I think the comical miscasting of John Malkovich and the leaden Brexit references covered up the fundamental weakness of the adaptation. Spoiler ahead. The whole point of Christie's story was that the grandiose set of crimes ended up being a cover for an essentially venal and conventional murder for financial gain. It is a statement about the banality of evil. It wasn't that the silly fart of a writer who perpetrated the adaptation had no reverence for the source material - she had no understanding of it.
    The problem that quite a few writers had with the David Suchet Poirot was that it was "just" an adaption. Apparently it would have been better if they had shovelled in some contemporary themes.... missing the point that the original stories have their own, often subtle points to make.

    Quite a few recent adaptions have been ruined by the writers not understanding the source material. The most farcical was the War of the Worlds.. Shovelling anti-colonialism into a story about alien colonisers that was explicitly written as an attack on colonialism.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    Fred fouled Azpilicueta for that disallowed goal, Bad VAR again
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    It used to be between 3 old people. Then there was a very brief flirtation with someone young enough to be the grandson of two of them, possibly of all three. Now its back to being between 3 old people, the only difference being that this time they're all blokes and collectively even older.

    The Democrats really are messing this up.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 2,562

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    "Stewardess? Oh, stewardess? What is the in-flight movie today?"
    "On any other day, that might seem strange."
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,469

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Friends managed 10 series with iirc 24 episodes per series and they are virtually all stonkingly well written and bloody brilliant. Admittedly only around 22 minutes a pop but that's the gold standard and always will be.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,819
    ydoethur said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Dad’s Army ran to 80, and until the final eight the quality remained high.
    I find Fawlty Towers side-splittingly funny ... and Yes Minister.

    Dad's Army is just very, very funny, as are another 5-10 programmes - all BBC except Spitting Image and Father Ted. But you can't make all the people laugh all of the time. I think Dad's Army did well to make 70 episodes that were all so good but people should know when they're tailing off and stop.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I have never ever watched any of the shows you guys are mentioning. Apart from Fleabag which I loved. When do you all find the time to watch all this TV, I’d like to know.

    It is a mark of our collective failings.
    Otherwise PB might have more excellent thread headers....
    I mostly draft the headers in my head when I am doing something else, often while outside walking or gardening. The actual writing takes v little time.

    BTW here on the north west coast, while it is still a bit windy today was glorious - sunny and clear. The drive here on Saturday was a bit hairy and the wind on Sunday was astonishing.

    I feel v sorry for those who have been flooded or are still at risk of it.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    The best episodes of Frasier are possibly the finest comedy on tv I have ever seen
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,469
    And Seinfeld. Quite superb writing.

    Whoever is dissing American comedy hasn't got a scoobies what they're on about.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,284

    Nigelb said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Don’t forget the US TV market has a LOT more money than ours.
    (And half of those you cite are pretty awful, IMO & FWIW)
    Arguably that's because they make more episodes. They find a good thing and milk it. It can't cost so much more to get episodes in the can - there must be economies of repetition. Friends for example they were just larking around in the same cheap sets for the most part.
    Repetition is hugely cheap. It's also all about the profit motive, so they double down on cheap. Compare to the UK which is a big non-profit, ITV and about seven dwarves.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,993

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    Wilson also lost one, so Wilson wins on goals scored?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,469
    Also King of the Hill. Bloody bloody funny. If you want a glorious piss take of Texas WASP it's just superb.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Probs should have chosen Kinnock or Smith, not Blair, still helped Labour fight back from a big defeat
    At the weekend, I read a thread on Labour's responses to the 1983 General Election, a series of quotes from Shore, Kaufman, Hattesrley, Kinnock et al. Some problems don't appear to have gone away.

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 2,469
    Friends didn't need fancy sets because the scriptwriting was so superb. Dad's Army likewise.
  • viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    Yes, but he's filmed all the stories, so now what? We've had definitive interpretations: Jeremy Brett as Sherlock, Joan Hickson as Marple, David Suchet as Poirot. We've gone about as far as we can go with that approach, so newer more freewheeling interpretations are indicated.

    Plus the fact that we are talking about the series proves the point. Both you and I saw the BBC Malkovich Poirot, so we can discuss it, but if I started talking about the stuff I watch on YouTube, you'd look at me as if I were mental. The BBC, for good or ill, provides a common base about which we can speak. If we go down the destroy-BBC-and-get-news-from-whoever we'll end up shouting past each other, just like they do in the States.

    Common institutions are necessary for the cohesion of the nation. Take them away and we're strangers in the same space... :(
    Do something else.

    It's pointless trying to remake Poirot. It can't be bettered.
    99% chance that you're right but the 1% exception can make it worth it.

    To be fair I thought it wasn't worth redoing The Joker in a movie as how could you possibly beat Jack Nicholson as The Joker? Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

    Surely there was no way that Heath Ledger could possibly compete with Jack Nicholson? Then The Dark Knight was released and he smashed it out of the park. Why so serious?

    Both portrayals were excellent. How could anyone ever touch that character again? Then came Joaquin Phoenix. I've yet to see his movie yet, but am looking forwards to it . . . and from all the reviews and comments I've seen its an entirely worthy contribution.

    Lightning rarely strikes twice. With The Joker its struck three times in modern times. Probably won't happen with Agatha Christie but its not to say it won't happen.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    I would have gone for Wilson too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    ydoethur said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Dad’s Army ran to 80, and until the final eight the quality remained high.
    I find Fawlty Towers side-splittingly funny ... and Yes Minister.

    Dad's Army is just very, very funny, as are another 5-10 programmes - all BBC except Spitting Image and Father Ted. But you can't make all the people laugh all of the time. I think Dad's Army did well to make 70 episodes that were all so good but people should know when they're tailing off and stop.
    They decided to end Father Ted after three series as well.

    That was before Dermot Morgan’s heart attack, although that did mean there was no chance of a change of mind.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Probs should have chosen Kinnock or Smith, not Blair, still helped Labour fight back from a big defeat
    Smith was just a free hit surely? No one is going to criticise, becauae of his untimely death, and he set the party on the road to power after a long time out. Proxy for saying Blair really, a great cop out missed
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    Wilson would have loved to have had Blair's majorities.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    Few fave dramas from the BBC:
    Jonathan Creek
    All Creatures Great and Small (childhood thing)
    New Tricks (for the most part - haven't watched recently)
    Sure there are more.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,993
    On the subject of churning out episodes of a comedy, can anyone guess (without looking) how many episodes of Last of the Summer Wine were made.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    Dad’s Army ran to 80, and until the final eight the quality remained high.
    I find Fawlty Towers side-splittingly funny ... and Yes Minister.

    Dad's Army is just very, very funny, as are another 5-10 programmes - all BBC except Spitting Image and Father Ted. But you can't make all the people laugh all of the time. I think Dad's Army did well to make 70 episodes that were all so good but people should know when they're tailing off and stop.
    They decided to end Father Ted after three series as well.

    That was before Dermot Morgan’s heart attack, although that did mean there was no chance of a change of mind.
    At least you can get box sets of your BBC favourites and they come in a sensible size. Looking at my shelf the TV box sets I have are Reggie Perrin, Secret Army, This Life, Band of Brothers (and Pacific). I’d like the Sopranos but the full set must cost an arm and come in a big box.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319

    Also King of the Hill. Bloody bloody funny. If you want a glorious piss take of Texas WASP it's just superb.

    I'm sure if you want that, it is.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,387
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    He had a fairly comfortable margin over the Tories of 43 in Oct 1974 and the support of Gerry Fitt et al meant that his de facto majority was close to double figures.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,344
    dr_spyn said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Probs should have chosen Kinnock or Smith, not Blair, still helped Labour fight back from a big defeat
    At the weekend, I read a thread on Labour's responses to the 1983 General Election, a series of quotes from Shore, Kaufman, Hattesrley, Kinnock et al. Some problems don't appear to have gone away.

    I thought that whole Twitter account was rather interesting. Plus ca change!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    edited February 17
    The following Prime Ministers since 1900 all won general elections with overall majorities of more than 100 seats:

    Salisbury
    Campbell-Bannerman
    Stanley Baldwin* (twice on his own, once as the most important member of a triumvirate nominally headed by Macdonald)
    Attlee
    Thatcher (twice)
    Blair (twice)

    But all of them except Blair and Thatcher also lost elections, sometimes by huge margins (Campbell-Bannerman embarrassingly so).

    So if we look at majorities of unbeaten PMs, Thatcher had 43, 144 and 101 (average 96) while Blair had 179, 167 and 66 (average 137).

    So realistically, however you look at it, Blair is the most electorally successful leader of the twentieth century and arguably of all time. He remains the only man to win three consecutive elections since 1832, and even Thatcher cannot match his extraordinary dominance of the electoral arithmetic.

    To put it in context, he has won more elections with majorities in double figures than every other Labour leader put together.

    Love him or loathe him, he was a political colossus and Labour really do need to come to terms with that.

    *Discounting Lloyd George in 1918, where rather unusual circumstances applied and it is by no means clear he would have won a majority had the Unionists opposed him instead of supporting him.
  • He hopes the media "learn to stop selective quoting", does he? So was it written in his "contract" that he wasn't allowed to respond publicly to misleading media stories about his past writings, for example to explain that he was being quoted out of context, or alternatively to say that whereas he used to think that way when he was younger he doesn't hold those views any more? I doubt HMG puts clauses into contracts saying that if someone accuses you of being a Nazi you mustn't deny it.

    What does it mean to "resign as a contractor" anyway?

    I don't understand why Dominic Cummings would hire such a moron. Maybe they've known each other a while. Or it could be this is a Cummings weak point - that he believed having a super-duper Brier score for geopolitics at Philip Tetlock's superforecaster website makes a person into a 10^-4 type on his beloved measure of "general intelligence".

    Actually Cummings has said something similar:

    "Anyway, it would be worth exploring this question: can very high IQ people with certain personality traits (like von Neumann, not like Gödel) learn enough in half a day’s exposure to case studies of successful political action to enable them to change something significant in politics, provided someone else can do most of the admin donkey work? I’m willing to bet the answer is YES." (my emphasis)

    Have you explored it now, Dominic?

    That's the elephant in the room. Leaving aside Dominic Cummings's assumed role in the hiring of Andrew Sabisky, it's not obvious why one of them has a worldview which is beyond the pale and the other one doesn't.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,819
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    tlg86 said:

    On the subject of churning out episodes of a comedy, can anyone guess (without looking) how many episodes of Last of the Summer Wine were made.

    It felt like 10,000.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Long-Bailey struggling to weigh up all the 10/10 Labour leaders?
  • IanB2 said:

    At least you can get box sets of your BBC favourites and they come in a sensible size. Looking at my shelf the TV box sets I have are Reggie Perrin, Secret Army, This Life, Band of Brothers (and Pacific). I’d like the Sopranos but the full set must cost an arm and come in a big box.

    Thanks to the internet we don't need box sets anymore.

    I got the boxed set of Stargate SG1 (including the made for TV movies) a decade ago, the full box was massive. Watched it once then never touched it again, a few discs got misplaced when I moved house and that was the end of that.

    Recently started rewatching it from the beginning via Sky on demand. Its held up well. But no need to worry about discs, nor swapping discs around every few episodes etc - just select the show you want to watch with the remote and thats it. Far more convenient.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    He had a fairly comfortable margin over the Tories of 43 in Oct 1974 and the support of Gerry Fitt et al meant that his de facto majority was close to double figures.
    How does adding Gerry Fitt to a majority of three make his majority ‘close to double figures?’
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    At some point, very soon, the Men in Grey Suits are going to arrive in Downing Street and attempt to put some adults in the room.

    I gave Cummings until the end of the year. I doubt he will make Summer now.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    At some point, very soon, the Men in Grey Suits are going to arrive in Downing Street and attempt to put some adults in the room.

    I gave Cummings until the end of the year. I doubt he will make Summer now.

    Still too long. He should never have made last summer.

    The irony is I imagine despite his loathsomeness many people in Downing Street will be sorry to see him go, as while he is spectacularly messing up everywhere and preening himself on his brilliance they will be getting what they want behind his back (cf HS2).
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,387
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    He had a fairly comfortable margin over the Tories of 43 in Oct 1974 and the support of Gerry Fitt et al meant that his de facto majority was close to double figures.
    How does adding Gerry Fitt to a majority of three make his majority ‘close to double figures?’
    I did say 'et al'! The Irish Republican who turned up to abstain in person in March 1979 was unlikely to vote with the Tories. With Fitt that effectively pushed his majority up to 6 - and then there were 3 Plaid led by Gwynfor Evans.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    1997 was there on a plate for Blair or any half decent successor to John Smith. Blair only won in 2005 by giving every impression that he would very shortly stand down in favour of Brown. 2001 is the only one Blair really deserves credit for, representing the legacy of his first term.

    For 2005, this is where we were at the morning after:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/07/uk.labour
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    On the subject of churning out episodes of a comedy, can anyone guess (without looking) how many episodes of Last of the Summer Wine were made.

    It felt like 10,000.
    285? Somewhere around that figure, anyway.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    Let's see how the Budget goes down first.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    ydoethur said:

    At some point, very soon, the Men in Grey Suits are going to arrive in Downing Street and attempt to put some adults in the room.

    I gave Cummings until the end of the year. I doubt he will make Summer now.

    Still too long. He should never have made last summer.

    The irony is I imagine despite his loathsomeness many people in Downing Street will be sorry to see him go, as while he is spectacularly messing up everywhere and preening himself on his brilliance they will be getting what they want behind his back (cf HS2).
    It is Shakespearean almost. Appointed with much fanfare as a known winner, given massive powers he could have driven this administration for years from the back rooms.

    But no, he had to preen all over the press front pages every day of the week.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    1997 was there on a plate for Blair or any half decent successor to John Smith. Blair only won in 2005 by giving every impression that he would very shortly stand down in favour of Brown. 2001 is the only one Blair really deserves credit for, representing the legacy of his first term.

    For 2005, this is where we were at the morning after:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/07/uk.labour
    1983 was there on a plate for anyone who wasn’t Michael Foot.

    1906 was there on a plate for anyone who wasn’t Arthur Balfour.

    1924 was there on a plate for anyone who wasn’t a Socialist.

    You can only play the cards you are dealt. Blair did that quite magnificently.

    Whether he achieved anything commensurate to his electoral success in terms of reform is another question entirely.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    1997 was there on a plate for Blair or any half decent successor to John Smith. Blair only won in 2005 by giving every impression that he would very shortly stand down in favour of Brown. 2001 is the only one Blair really deserves credit for, representing the legacy of his first term.

    For 2005, this is where we were at the morning after:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/07/uk.labour
    2019 was there on a plate for any half-decent successor to Blair.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340


    Sabisky appears to have taken the role of a sex counsellor. Perhaps he will stick to writing fiction in future.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    He had a fairly comfortable margin over the Tories of 43 in Oct 1974 and the support of Gerry Fitt et al meant that his de facto majority was close to double figures.
    How does adding Gerry Fitt to a majority of three make his majority ‘close to double figures?’
    I did say 'et al'! The Irish Republican who turned up to abstain in person in March 1979 was unlikely to vote with the Tories. With Fitt that effectively pushed his majority up to 6 - and then there were 3 Plaid led by Gwynfor Evans.
    Who were so supportive Callaghan had to turn to the Liberals...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    1997 was there on a plate for Blair or any half decent successor to John Smith. Blair only won in 2005 by giving every impression that he would very shortly stand down in favour of Brown. 2001 is the only one Blair really deserves credit for, representing the legacy of his first term.

    For 2005, this is where we were at the morning after:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/07/uk.labour
    That looks like the type of piece that’ll be written about the Tories in a few years’ time
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    isam said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    My Mum's cousin did the titles for the David Suchet one
    Bravo. They are superb.

    I love art deco.
    Wonderful use of the stream-lined Coronation Class locos.....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Only 2 seasons of How I met your mother were any good. Big Bang theory didn't even get two seasons. Friends was deeply mediocre for over half its rub (although unusually it is the back half where it picked up).

    Cheers however is utterly peerless, superb throughout , you've got me there.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383

    So the story was to get new legs, and hence we know why he was sacked
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,387
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    He had a fairly comfortable margin over the Tories of 43 in Oct 1974 and the support of Gerry Fitt et al meant that his de facto majority was close to double figures.
    How does adding Gerry Fitt to a majority of three make his majority ‘close to double figures?’
    I did say 'et al'! The Irish Republican who turned up to abstain in person in March 1979 was unlikely to vote with the Tories. With Fitt that effectively pushed his majority up to 6 - and then there were 3 Plaid led by Gwynfor Evans.
    Who were so supportive Callaghan had to turn to the Liberals...
    The arithmetic had changed by March 1977 following by election reverses. Plaid did support Callaghan in the March 79 Confidence Vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    1997 was there on a plate for Blair or any half decent successor to John Smith. Blair only won in 2005 by giving every impression that he would very shortly stand down in favour of Brown. 2001 is the only one Blair really deserves credit for, representing the legacy of his first term.

    For 2005, this is where we were at the morning after:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/07/uk.labour
    2019 was there on a plate for any half-decent successor to Blair.
    But having failed so disastrously there, even against Johnson 2024 will be no gimme. It is 1970 since a majority of that size was overturned in one election.

    Plus Johnson will surely go for bread and circuses to try and appease his voters.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,067
    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    Alistair said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Only 2 seasons of How I met your mother were any good. Big Bang theory didn't even get two seasons. Friends was deeply mediocre for over half its rub (although unusually it is the back half where it picked up).

    Cheers however is utterly peerless, superb throughout , you've got me there.
    Even the trailer for Seinfeld is shit. All childish slapstick humour and dreadful canned laughter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    He had a fairly comfortable margin over the Tories of 43 in Oct 1974 and the support of Gerry Fitt et al meant that his de facto majority was close to double figures.
    How does adding Gerry Fitt to a majority of three make his majority ‘close to double figures?’
    I did say 'et al'! The Irish Republican who turned up to abstain in person in March 1979 was unlikely to vote with the Tories. With Fitt that effectively pushed his majority up to 6 - and then there were 3 Plaid led by Gwynfor Evans.
    Who were so supportive Callaghan had to turn to the Liberals...
    The arithmetic had changed by March 1977 following by election reverses. Plaid did support Callaghan in the March 79 Confidence Vote.
    In which, of course, Gerry Fitt abstained.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 27,035

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Do you think it'll happen faster if you post about it every five minutes? :wink:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,335

    Do you think it'll happen faster if you post about it every five minutes? :wink:
    Would be nice to think so. And a good reason to try for posting every thirty seconds.

    Good night.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 1,409
    ydoethur said:

    The following Prime Ministers since 1900 all won general elections with overall majorities of more than 100 seats:

    Salisbury
    Campbell-Bannerman
    Stanley Baldwin* (twice on his own, once as the most important member of a triumvirate nominally headed by Macdonald)
    Attlee
    Thatcher (twice)
    Blair (twice)

    But all of them except Blair and Thatcher also lost elections, sometimes by huge margins (Campbell-Bannerman embarrassingly so).

    So if we look at majorities of unbeaten PMs, Thatcher had 43, 144 and 101 (average 96) while Blair had 179, 167 and 66 (average 137).

    So realistically, however you look at it, Blair is the most electorally successful leader of the twentieth century and arguably of all time. He remains the only man to win three consecutive elections since 1832, and even Thatcher cannot match his extraordinary dominance of the electoral arithmetic.

    To put it in context, he has won more elections with majorities in double figures than every other Labour leader put together.

    Love him or loathe him, he was a political colossus and Labour really do need to come to terms with that.

    *Discounting Lloyd George in 1918, where rather unusual circumstances applied and it is by no means clear he would have won a majority had the Unionists opposed him instead of supporting him.

    That makes him an *electoral* colossus, not a political one. A distinction too often ignored here (understandably, because political betting is actually electoral betting).
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    edited February 17
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:



    Took Tories 3 general elections to form a coalition.
    Took Tories 4 general elections to form a majority government.
    Wilson won 4 general elections. Blair won 3.
    That said, Wilson only won one with a majority of more than four.
    1997 was there on a plate for Blair or any half decent successor to John Smith. Blair only won in 2005 by giving every impression that he would very shortly stand down in favour of Brown. 2001 is the only one Blair really deserves credit for, representing the legacy of his first term.

    For 2005, this is where we were at the morning after:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/may/07/uk.labour
    1983 was there on a plate for anyone who wasn’t Michael Foot.

    1906 was there on a plate for anyone who wasn’t Arthur Balfour.

    1924 was there on a plate for anyone who wasn’t a Socialist.

    You can only play the cards you are dealt. Blair did that quite magnificently.

    Whether he achieved anything commensurate to his electoral success in terms of reform is another question entirely.
    No, you judge the quality of a leader not on the cards they are dealt but on whether they play their cards well or badly.

    Blair was dealt a set of aces in 1997, the Tories being 20% behind in the polls and riven by continuing division by the time he took over in the latter half of 1994.

    By 2005 Blair really was unpopular*, and the memory of that election is of Brown being pushed to the front to further the impression that Blair was on his way out, shoring up the vote enough to just get over the line with a mere 36% share. But for the hopes invested in Brown, 2005 could have turned out the same way as 1970 did for Wilson.

    *EDIT. Net -25% as this PB article confirms, the worst winning leader rating in recent times.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867

    Do you think it'll happen faster if you post about it every five minutes? :wink:
    Yes :lol:
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,284

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
    BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    Yes, have to agree. Unfortunately, the militant guilt by association cultists are everywhere now, and they are intolerant of any view outside of their narrow slither of public opinion.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited February 17

    isam said:

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    The Director General of the BBC should have been arrested for that travesty of a Poirot.

    There is only one Poirot and it is David Suggest.
    My Mum's cousin did the titles for the David Suchet one
    Bravo. They are superb.

    I love art deco.
    Wonderful use of the stream-lined Coronation Class locos.....
    This is him

    https://www.patgavinstudios.com/

    He did the South Bank Show as well. Luck and Flaw offered to cut him in on Spitting Image when they came up with the concept, and he said no!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542
    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    edited February 17
    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    Could someone enlighten me as to why his views were worthy of informing Government policy?

    If 'thinking the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be' was qualification enough, every town has plenty of racist bigots who'd be prepared to have their views influence policy for free.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    Utter rot, in this particular case.
    Rather than thinking the unthinkable intelligently, he was spouting utter cods on subjects he possessed no specialist knowledge in.

  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 27,035

    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
    Sheer genius

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    edited February 17
    IanB2 said:


    So the story was to get new legs, and hence we know why he was sacked
    Just goes to show that adopting the same 'wait for it to blow over' tactic does not always work - they should have guessed there'd be more coming that would force them to act, and in misjudgement have made it worse for themselves. Whatever the rights or wrongs they've sustained at least minor political damage to no gain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    IanB2 said:

    Alistair said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.
    Only 2 seasons of How I met your mother were any good. Big Bang theory didn't even get two seasons. Friends was deeply mediocre for over half its rub (although unusually it is the back half where it picked up).

    Cheers however is utterly peerless, superb throughout , you've got me there.
    Even the trailer for Seinfeld is shit. All childish slapstick humour and dreadful canned laughter.
    Is it supposed to have improved after that ... ?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542
    In 1981 ITV showed an hour long documentary about Climate Change.

    Didn't require anyone to be a massive creepy eugenicist to do so.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073
    edited February 17
    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.

    Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.

    His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.

    It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
This discussion has been closed.