I may not be the most reliable correspondent.

Reliability is overrated.

I too enjoyed this one. The book's not half bad either.

A number of people have noted the extraordinary number of hanging threads at the end of the novel (and the series) which is very probably a result of the book being 12 years in the writing. Nevertheless it is an enjoyable read (well, I liked it anyway). Susanna Clarke has done incredibly well from the book, receiving a £1,000,000 advance from Bloomsbury and at least that much again for the film rights. Since the average income for a full-time author in the UK is presently below £13,000, this is quite something. Apparently she has been working on a sequel for nearly 14 years, but I wouldn't hold your breath. But then again, you never know.

Interesting. I can't imagine a feature film (even @ ~2-hrs) being any more than a 'coles notes' rendition (or maybe they have it in mind to do LOTR stylee).

Yeah that would make sense. But by the time I end up realising I like it, it's usually a bit late.

We get the DVD from the library and binge-watch. Problem solved (except for scratchy bits we have to skip over).

That only works if you both decide to watch something together. If one is watching something while someone else is in work, or out, or whatever, then you catch up with it and decide you rather like it too, it might be too late by then.

Probably helps if you've got the DVDs to go back and watch the first episodes though I guess.

I want a second series of Gilbert and Johnathan.

I started reading the book, a huge tome that I will probably never finish, even though it is very well written and enjoyable. Concurrently we re-watched the series and yes, it is a coles -ish skate through, but the cast manages to bring depth and lustre to the vignettes.

Sadly it features Eddie Marson as Mr Norrell. I have no issue with his acting skill, but I find it hard to watch him these days because of his political views and activities.

He's excellent in this, and everything else I've ever seen him in. Sounds pretty reasonable here, though I'm on the opposite side of the fence, and I'm pretty sure he's not in possession of all the facts ... what am I missing?

There's plenty I'd agree with him on in politics, but he's one of a small number of actors, comedians, media figures on the right of the British labour party who not only dislike the left of the party (the FAR left or HARD left as they usually refer to them) but have actively attempted to disown, lie about, expel and otherwise deny them any say in a party that historically grew from the left. It's a long and painful story, and not one I'll bore you with. Suffice it to say that within certain sectors of the party, including probably a majority of the staff and MPs (which is one reason Corbyn had such a nightmare keeping the organisation running) the left are good for delivering leaflets, doing the shitty door-to-door stuff at elections, and paying subscriptions. If they want more they can just fuck off.

Edit: also, that's a Guardian interview. They're hardly going to give him a hard time in an interview, having worked hard as dedicated fellow anti-Corbynists while he led the party.

As a compleat outsider, I can only say it looks like that side of the party consider Corbyn and his ilk inimical to their ascension, because The Man would never allow those dirty pinkos near power.

The MAN came very close to conceding power in the 2017 UK general election. UK elections, like many around the world I suppose, are very complex to read, but a Corbyn led labour party wiped out the conservative majority leaving them to rely on a handful of votes from the utra-conservative Democratic Unionsist Party of Northern Ireland to continue ruling. This was done in the face of every media outlet in the UK, including the supposedly soft-left/liberal Guardian (and the BBC) attacking Corbyn on a daily basis. The only public broadcast service that was remotely neutral, was Channel 4, which has subsequently come under attack from the conservative party.

What the conservative party, the right wing of labour, and the broadcast, published and online media in the UK (echoing what is happening around the western world) have managed to do, is shift the political tone of public debate to the right. Quite moderate liberal views are now cast as somehow extreme leftism, verging on Trotskyite, whereas quite radical right wing views on reduction of social provision are seen as necessary, normal and moderate.

 

What's most remarkable is that none of Corbyn's proposed policies came anywhere near the real destruction of capital brought on by Brexit, which proceeded without so much as a whimper until too late to do anything about it.

Well, no. Corbyn's manifesto was built on the post-war traditions established by Clement Atlee. It never envisaged the destruction of capital.

I think many people misunderstand the conservative party. Since their return to power under Cameron, they have essentially abandoned government as such. Things keep running because that's what they do, but any actual change and restructuring hasn't been to improve things, it's been in the service of a different aim, enabling the transfer of wealth from the engine of wealth creation (the vast majority of working, investing, saving, spending citizens) to a tiny minority of increasing wealthy conservative fellow-travellers. At the same time, risk is passed back to the people and away from the wealthy. Hence risk-taking banks and financial institutions don't fail; their losses, usually caused by excessive profit-taking and decisions made purely on the basis that they will improve dividends, are paid for by that same engine of wealth in the form of bail-outs: the movement of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The tory government isn't bad at economic management. They actually mean it to work this way.

Yes, that's a ridiculously crude summary of what the government is up to, and obviously individual ministers will, at times, work at doing things they genuinely believe are a part of running a ministry and the nation, but I think on the whole it's correct.

This is an excellent summation. It didn't matter (and still doesn't) what Corbyn's manifesto stated, that is how it was sold by a panoply of panicked enemies in a full-court press, which only concluded with him being barred from running.

If he was younger and fitter, perhaps some kind of comeback would be in the cards. Hard to say who his successor might be, or their prospects.

There's still no obvious successor and the Labour right has properly salted the earth (is still doing it, really) as far as doing it again through that party. I think it'll be another decade or two minimum, sadly, before we get another unlikely shot at it.
 

Is Raynor the last Corbynite in Parliament?