I’m merely saying it’s a good tactic. Johnson isn’t a serious administrator and people may tire of his endless triviality when they can’t fill up or buy sausages.
Yes. I think you can roughly express the parties along the lines of their culture and economics. So the Tories won last time with Culture = conservative, Economics promising some socialism. Labour lost with Culture = Progressive, economics socialist. I think Starmer may as well draw a target on his backside if he approaches the red wall with Progressive culture and Liberal economics, which is what the Lib Dems will.
I shall get quite vexed when the Tories knock on my door. Tax up on employment. Tax up on business. They have taken us out of the EU. And now Pret can’t get that chocolate sauce mix so I couldn’t even order a bloody Mocha this morning.
Surely there's no point in having a plan to tackle invincible machines? I for one will welcome our alien overlords in the vain hope that they use plenty of lube when my probing begins.
Essentially not returning to the 1970s where the trading unions are running the country, nationalisation is the norm and the answer to everything is to spend our way out of a problem.
But there won't be, anymore than that society, when working class people couldn't become professionals or judges or present a TV programme or women couldn't as much as drive a truck, will reoccur. Union power was a symptom of an unhinged class divided society where conflict was the only way to advancement. Don't want strife? Make sure people have what they need.
So, is our country "unhinged class divided" society now or is it not? If not, then we can just carry on improving everyone's lot "nothing to see here, let's move on". If it is, then we have a 70's situation the last time the socialists were in government, but bolstered by a social media that effectively polarises everything just to create tension, bitterness and conflict. Just ripe for the next 3 day week, power cuts, rubbish and bodies piling up, begging to the IMF for a bailout loan and Red Robbo, or worse.
Of course we don't. The unions have nowhere near the power, membership or resources that they had in the 1970s.
Well obviously it is still hugely divided. Some have many homes and huge amounts of land. Some need to get food donated by strangers. But mobility is open to more and like Keighley says, your concerns about the unions are not well founded. It’s odd that you accuse the unions of being dinosaurs when you are decades out of date. This notion you have, that we are all in it together rumbling on and improving simply isn’t the experience for many and they need the rest of us to do and share more.
That won't last if Starmer get's in, then he will be the trogan horse. The unions will take over. They pay for the Labour Party, and they'll expect something back. And in any case, in the social media world, the unions aren't needed to organise action.
Mmm, but manufacturing industry and traditional manual labour is minimal now, so that takes away a huge chunk of union resources and power.
You forgot that the winter is going to be terrible and there is new evidence about Princess Diana’s death.
They still have power all across the civil service, local government, education, health, utilities and transport.
What ZZ has done beautifully is show the link between how the wealthy remain unopposed and how fear about even moderate alternatives is generated.
Good to see Sir Keir throwing away a few thousand more votes by announcing on TV yesterday that he thinks the next James Bond should be played by a woman.
Female votes, I presume you mean? Some of us of the male persuasion might not be averse to this idea. Miriam Margolyes gets my vote.
I don't think the party leader's views on actors playing fictional characters in films is going to be a deciding factor as to who I vote for tbh.
James Bond is a fictional character. He’s a middle aged man who couldn’t possibly do the things set out in the film. Having a vagina would be the least of his worries. If you want some sort of realism to invade the thing, how about this. After the initial scene where his/her Aston Martin careers through souks or a bazaar, sending traders and their wares flying, how about the next 90 minutes is all about MI5 settling the insurance claims of those traders and writing policy on how to mitigate such wanton destruction? Have to say having a female Dr Who hasn’t spoiled my enjoyment of that programme. It’s still awful and I still don’t watch it.
It's awful because the writing team is awful and they got all sanctimonious and woke. Whittaker herself is a decent actress but can only perform what is written for her. Rumor is Russell T Davis is coming back so she might well get a decent last season. Personally Id like to see Billy Piper take over the role. In my mind (only watching the films) James Bond is a position in MI6 rather than one individual person. Each actor plays a different persons in that role. I have no issue with the next bond being black, female, young old, an action star or a nerdy computer hacker spy (which is probably more realistic). Things move on and if anyone's vote is swayed by Kier Starkers rabbiting on about it rather than concentrating on the substance of his policies then they deserve to get the bland useless lump as PM.
I’ve finally seen the GMB clip where he says this about Bond. I mean why he bothers I really don’t know, but it’s an interesting example of the culture war that this is mostly what the right have focussed on since. It shows how all this woke and pc stuff is simply a way of distracting from real politics, from the obvious Government failures he highlighted. Starmer also failed to answer why it was ok to lie to the left of his party, but no one here seems to care about that.
I don't get why people are offended when someone new comes into a franchise and changes everything around. I used to watch Doctor Who back in the seventies, but what they are making since the reboot isn't being made for me, although I enjoyed some of the Matt Smith stuff around the time of the anniversary, and I am perfectly happy with that. It's a bit like Star Wars, with people going crazy because a film made in 2018 reflects a very different world to that reflected in the 1977 film. Yeah, there is the fact that one was ground breaking, great fun and a visual spectacle, and the later is a virtually unwatchable but beautifully made pile of cack (from my point of view), but again, it ain't necessarily being made for me, and I am quite calm about that; enough people did want to pay to see it, so who am I to criticise them. I don't feel like I'm missing out or being betrayed. Same with Bond. But then, my favourite film was OHMSS, and I haven't been excited to see a new movie since the woeful For Your Eyes Only and I haven't been pleasantly surprised since, with the exception of the excellent Living Daylights. They're entertaining stuff, but really nothing like the movies in the franchise I loved. Let them put a woman in the role. See what happens. Personally I think it is a bit silly and unlikely to enhance the property. I think, in general terms, that as long as he's a he, and does a decent British accent, the rest doesn't really matter. I would have loved to see Idris Elba in the role a few years ago. but I suspect he is getting a little bit old to play the part over the type of arc they got DC to play. There are some good British Asian actors that could do a job too. Heck, I don't even mind if he's played by a white guy. But I think it must be said that having a cervix may just be going a little too far to be taken seriously, to bring the thread back on subject.
I honestly think that it is not simply the socialist route that guarantees failure, but the soclialist route that rejects capitalism that is doomed to failure. A capitalist elite tends to be broad in its scope, more socially mobile (given that hard work is the low level entry requirement) and whilst acting in the interest of genuine capitalism, requires that people have money in their pocket to spend. Lazy capitalists usually tend to end up invalidating and devaluing themselves. The characature of unfettered capitalism is in fact capitalism gone wrong, with the greed crazed and corrupt elites becoming the right wing equivalent to the corrupt vanguard elites of socioalism. Vanguard elites start off in powerful positions through elements of merit (the more ambitious and the more genuine) and fortunate landing grounds following a revolution, and they tend to then fester as each generation of family from within the vanguard take their rightful place as the next of the vanguard. Churn within the vanguard is more difficult than just a matter of hard work, as no amount of effort will persuade a hereditary encumbent to forgo their position for an up and coming go getter. Same with capitalism, but in that case, there are usually other options of employment in which to excel. Both are going to exploit people, but only one of them relies on there being more people this time next year than there are today. Only one of them relies on people having money in their pocket to spend, and health in their bones to work. That is why the NHS, in my opinion, is essential to a capitalist society, so that the population is healthy and able to earn good money, and wealthy tax payers should embrace the need for universal health care available to all, being the people they emply, and the people who pay for their goods. Society is also essential to Capitalism, because having a peaceful environment in which to trade is essential, or you just can't do it. Weapons manufacturers who encourage war to perpetuate their trade are not capitalists, but fascists who wish to act with government to feed their greed, and when they become a cog of government, they are no longer capitalists. No more than a Vangaurd elite who has not ambition other than to feed his own fat face is a true socialist. The problem with socialism is that there are few if any people who are true socialists, so it cannot sustain itself (it needs 100% willing committment from everyone for a socialist utopia to succeed), and is doomed to become despotic. A pure and pragmatic socialist, I imagine, would see the world in a practical, rather than idealogical manner, and understand that indulging people's selfishness can actually create a more generous, peaceful and socially accepting world, because people have to rely on each other, whether it is for jobs, health or income.
It is nothing to do with body parts or ability to do what is in the films. It is all fictional and OTT, everybody knows that. But James Bond's character is a man, as much as Henry VIII or Adolf Hitler and is arguably more famous than both. You can't just swap his sex without changing the entire premise. Having a James Bond played a woman is like having DI Jane Tennyson or Wonder Woman being played by a man. It's just wokery nonsense, there is no need. Just create another female character as 008 or something? That could be interesting, maybe where she outwits her male foes with her higher intelligence rather than brawn. Where is the imagination, where is the common sense?
Absolutely. It is not the ones who simply disagree I don't get, but the ones who are offended, and many people who do disagree are also offended by it, in my opinion. I'm not even saying the offended are wrong to be so. I am just saying that I don't get it. If I like a film, I will watch it. If I don't, I won't. I may find it very dissapointing, even annoying, I may even suspect political motivation, as I do with Doctor Who, but ultimately, if it has no interest for me, it's not on my playlist, end of.
It was a particularly daft and dreary intervention by Starmer, but there is no reason why the next film couldn’t flip the character’s gender. There is no continuity to break. It’s been going 60 years and he’s only just reached middle aged. Any fantasy will do. But what are your limits for Bond? Could we have a working class one? Maybe with a broad West Country accent? Or is only posh acceptable?
