Goldfinger for me. Solid imaginative plot. Great villain and sidekick. Peak physical Connery. A golf scene. Our macho protagonist in that ridiculous short blue onesy by the pool.
And this memorable scene:
Bond wakes up tied to a chair and is faced by Honor Blackman gazing down at him. There's no fear only amused curiosity. His eyes glint and he drawls a single word.
"Pussy!"
From Russia with Love.
The best Bond and also the best Bond villain in Robert Shaw.
Connery is an extremely boring choice, and also not the correct one.
He just has first mover advantage.
Dalton most accurately captured Fleming's Bond.
I would have thought that, given your PB moniker, David Niven should be your choice
I am a fan of Daniel Craig, led to my original choice, but he went really weird in the last few years.
I think Barbara Brocolli was basically in love with him, and he ended up taking over and then essentially consuming the whole franchise.
She couldn't contemplate it without him, and was grieving - and I don't blame her, after 40 years of her life - so she was totally spent and sold out to Amazon.
I remember walking out of watching Layer Cake with friends and we all said straight away that Craig should be the next bond. Loved Casino Royal as they had to up their game as Bourne had raised the bar. I actually like Quantum of Solace watching it again after a long gap. Sky fall was ok but it got a bit too much about personal life for me. Tried watching Spectre and have never got past around 20 mins and never bothered to watch No time to die as I presumed it was just more Bond feels than Bond kills.
I can’t see Mr Dua Lipa playing bond as he looks a bit like a rat. Not his fault but not for me.
If Amazon have plans to make a universe then a pared back post war Cold War bond with low key tech would be good but they shouldn’t saturate it with a million spin offs to attract every demographic as it will kill any cachet.
Quantum of Solace is also a James Bond movie which history will treat more kindly than people did at the time.
However, it does have a pretty rubbish villain.
I have a soft spot for Quantum of Solace. I've been known for my counter-cultural views here at times, and that film tickled that part of me. A villain who was a feted eco-hero but who was actually intending to commandeer a vital natural resource was an edgy theme. I agree he's not really a physical threat or an organisational one. Perhaps some building up was needed there.
Oh the plot is good: I love the whole water thing, and the sweaty Latin American Generalissimo President.
It's just the Dominic Green is about as threatening as a wet lettuce.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Didn't you notice the different coloured wetsuits! Goodies were Orange, Baddie were Black!
Peter.
Kinda the approach of Reform types in Glasgow atm.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Didn't you notice the different coloured wetsuits! Goodies were Orange, Baddie were Black!
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
He did a Play for Todsy in the early seventies with Maurice Roeves.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Diamonds is poor, yes. Connery is too old and phoning it in. The plot is messy and ludicrous. It's actually a bit of a tawdy affair.
What a fool the man is. I really do think that Truss might see her 49 days beaten.
From the same Twitter feed
“ 🚨NEW: Andy Burnham will increase international aid spending from the current 0.2% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP
It will cost roughly +£16.5Bn”
Doesn’t say if it’s per year or life of parliament
Admirable but will go down badly with a lot of people . If confirmed this looks like a bad mistake by Burnham and where exactly is he going to find the money ?
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Agree with the best.
Charles Gray in drag in Diamonds are Forever and, sadly, Toby Stephens in Die Another Day are sadly the worst.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT wasn't that good either, and has provided endless spoofing material in the decades since.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
I never feel like the The Living Daylights loses anything, because it has the background of the Afghanistan War and menacing villians like Necros. Whittaker becomes dangerous at the end too.
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
That's as relevant today as ever.
It is subjective, and if you don't feel the film loses anything in the third act, that's fine. However, for me, [spoiler ahead] once the fake assasination has taken place, and the villains think they're fine but the Soviets are on to them, we know they're done. Yes, Bond could still theoretically die, but there's no real jeopardy any more. If it's on, I'll often catch the brilliant first half with Gibraltar and the Cello car chase, and the pipeline - that's all brilliant. However I usually drift away by the end.
Are you mad?
The Afghanistan cinematography, the airbase attack, the cargo net fight (and the amazing music throughout) followed by the assault on the Russi...
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It is a good film. The patronising attitude of Bond to Quarrel is a problem though. Colonialism personified. Although it's worse in the book.
I've read all the books. I used to have a complete collection of the pan original paperbacks. My parents lost it in a clearout.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Getting Bond wrong.
Ironically, that scene was quite faithfully adapted from the book.
They’re now saying it’s a roadmap back to 0.7 % of GDP.
Regardless it’s a stupid move because he’s now going to burn a lot of political capital on this and will be accused of having the wrong priorities.
Google Maps.
It knows where you're going, but at the slightest sign of trouble gets very confused about the best way to get you there and ends up taking you a ridiculously long way round to achieve nothing.
Hampshire have really throttled Northants back in the last three overs. At one point I couldn't see how they would be chasing less than 220 but how well Dawson has bowled.
Why is burnham seemingly yearning for the 1970s ? . A very strange speech
I have a yearning that (IMHO, the superb) Timothy Dalton made more than two Bond films, but we can't always have what we want.
Dalton's first outing was superb. Maryam D'Abo may have helped somewhat. I wasn't so keen on the second, the one with the wheelie -pulling Kenworths.
Try it again.
Licence to Kill is an excellent thriller.
I have seen it loads of times. The Living Daylights on the other hand is certainly in my top 5.
I like that.
I watched Licence to Kill again last night.
It is very dark, but Dalton's acting is superb and the chemistry between him and Robert Davi possible the best in the whole series.
I really enjoyed it.
Both Dalton's films are good. Both have flaws. The Living Daylights loses its way plotwise in the third act, when there's no threat anymore. Licence to Kill has a lot going for it but it has a little bit of a made for TV feel. Bond films always reflect culture and this was maybe influenced by the TV of the time?
I never feel like the The Living Daylights loses anything, because it has the background of the Afghanistan War and menacing villians like Necros. Whittaker becomes dangerous at the end too.
Sure, both films are about drugs - not blowing up the whole world - but Bond films don't have to be pastiches of themselves to be great thrillers, sometimes it's great to just bring a megalomaniac arsehole down.
That's as relevant today as ever.
It is subjective, and if you don't feel the film loses anything in the third act, that's fine. However, for me, [spoiler ahead] once the fake assasination has taken place, and the villains think they're fine but the Soviets are on to them, we know they're done. Yes, Bond could still theoretically die, but there's no real jeopardy any more. If it's on, I'll often catch the brilliant first half with Gibraltar and the Cello car chase, and the pipeline - that's all brilliant. However I usually drift away by the end.
Are you mad?
The Afghanistan cinematography, the airbase attack, the cargo net fight (and the amazing music throughout) followed by the assault on the Russi...
Ah, I see the problem.
I can't imagine being so much of a tragic twat that I would try to get personal in a discussion of opinions on a Bond film.
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Donald Grant and Rosa Klebb for me by a country mile.
They are absolutely superb.
But -then again- so is Goldfinger.
It's quite surprising, though, how many weak Bond movies have good villains, and vice versa.
In fact, I would argue that the only great Bond movies, with great baddies are:
- From Russia with Love - Goldfinger - Goldeneye - License to Kill
Only been one real Bond, the first one, the rest are pale imitations.
Which was the only actor to be approached to play Bond in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s?
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Donald Grant and Rosa Klebb for me by a country mile.
They are absolutely superb.
But -then again- so is Goldfinger.
It's quite surprising, though, how many weak Bond movies have good villains, and vice versa.
In fact, I would argue that the only great Bond movies, with great baddies are:
- From Russia with Love - Goldfinger - Goldeneye - License to Kill
Only been one real Bond, the first one, the rest are pale imitations.
Which was the only actor to be approached to play Bond in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s?
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Donald Grant and Rosa Klebb for me by a country mile.
They are absolutely superb.
But -then again- so is Goldfinger.
It's quite surprising, though, how many weak Bond movies have good villains, and vice versa.
In fact, I would argue that the only great Bond movies, with great baddies are:
- From Russia with Love - Goldfinger - Goldeneye - License to Kill
Only been one real Bond, the first one, the rest are pale imitations.
Which was the only actor to be approached to play Bond in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s?
Hampshire have really throttled Northants back in the last three overs. At one point I couldn't see how they would be chasing less than 220 but how well Dawson has bowled.
Sometimes we feel the loss of the off topic button more sharply.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It is a good film. The patronising attitude of Bond to Quarrel is a problem though. Colonialism personified. Although it's worse in the book.
I've read all the books. I used to have a complete collection of the pan original paperbacks. My parents lost it in a clearout.
Give yourself a holiday. The freedom to just read. Bond's world and its connections with the real world might have some tricky echoes, but you're depriving yourself if you don't just happily read whatever comes your way. Perhaps not back Spengler for the reading club.
Hampshire have really throttled Northants back in the last three overs. At one point I couldn't see how they would be chasing less than 220 but how well Dawson has bowled.
Sometimes we feel the loss of the off topic button more sharply.
Indeed.
All this talk about Bond when we should be concentrating on the cricket.
Hampshire have really throttled Northants back in the last three overs. At one point I couldn't see how they would be chasing less than 220 but how well Dawson has bowled.
Sometimes we feel the loss of the off topic button more sharply.
Indeed.
All this talk about Bond when we should be concentrating on the cricket.
Hampshire have really throttled Northants back in the last three overs. At one point I couldn't see how they would be chasing less than 220 but how well Dawson has bowled.
Sometimes we feel the loss of the off topic button more sharply.
Indeed.
All this talk about Bond when we should be concentrating on the cricket.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h My timeline is full of scientists, tech bosses, successful investors, top entrepreneurs and expert academics warning that abolishing the DSIT would be a terrible idea, plus a few Westminster commentators with zero expertise in any of the above areas going “Oh seems fine to me.”
I'm sorrry? What? Ed M and foreign policy? Has he ever shown the slightest interest?
Gets him out of the energy and the Treasury.
I recommended this move a very long time ago here.
Still think postmaster at Lerwick was a better option for his talents (and I did take the point what the hell had the good denizens of Lerwick done to deserve that).
I did tell the Labour in third trend posters they were being silly and not understanding things like MOE, odd they've gone not posting about the Tories being in third.
Hampshire have really throttled Northants back in the last three overs. At one point I couldn't see how they would be chasing less than 220 but how well Dawson has bowled.
Might be a bit too much though. Wickets will be key
I did tell the Labour in third trend posters they were being silly and not understanding things like MOE, odd they've gone not posting about the Tories being in third.
I do rather worry that politics might be swanning its way into our betting. There's no point making the odd pound or two if the Greens/Comunists/Bastard LDs lurk.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It is a good film. The patronising attitude of Bond to Quarrel is a problem though. Colonialism personified. Although it's worse in the book.
I've read all the books. I used to have a complete collection of the pan original paperbacks. My parents lost it in a clearout.
Give yourself a holiday. The freedom to just read. Bond's world and its connections with the real world might have some tricky echoes, but you're depriving yourself if you don't just happily read whatever comes your way. Perhaps not back Spengler for the reading club.
Told you - I had the whole collection!
Still read Morse when I'm in bed with the flu.
Noticing the 'problems' is just part of the experience.
Good if international aid money is spent on international aid and not doled out to landlords at home.
ETA better still if spent building waste recycling plants for those countries who chuck everything in the sea. A double whammy of jobs and a cleaner environment.
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Agree with the best.
Charles Gray in drag in Diamonds are Forever and, sadly, Toby Stephens in Die Another Day are sadly the worst.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT wasn't that good either, and has provided endless spoofing material in the decades since.
Charles Gray was so excerable, I actually suppressed it from my memory. He definitely should be in the worst list.
Donald Pleasance was very m'eh. I considered including him. (And I considered putting Telly Sevalas in the best list.) But in both cases, they didn't quite make the cut.
HOWEVER, I don't hate Toby Stephens in DaD. I love his sneer. But I agree he performed well below his ability. Being handed the most absurd part of the movie didn't help.
Ben Kentish @BenKentish · 1h My timeline is full of scientists, tech bosses, successful investors, top entrepreneurs and expert academics warning that abolishing the DSIT would be a terrible idea, plus a few Westminster commentators with zero expertise in any of the above areas going “Oh seems fine to me.”
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Diamonds is poor, yes. Connery is too old and phoning it in. The plot is messy and ludicrous. It's actually a bit of a tawdy affair.
I think DAF is best forgotten altogether. I would go straight from OHMSS to the absurd Roger Moore voodoo one. (Which is one that gets worse for me with every viewing )
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It really isn't; both of the Connery movies that follow it -From Russia with Love and Goldfinger- are better.
It is, however, better than all the Roger Moore ones, and most of the Brosnan and Craig movies.
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Agree with the best.
Charles Gray in drag in Diamonds are Forever and, sadly, Toby Stephens in Die Another Day are sadly the worst.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT wasn't that good either, and has provided endless spoofing material in the decades since.
Charles Gray was so excerable, I actually suppressed it from my memory. He definitely should be in the worst list.
Donald Pleasance was very m'eh. I considered including him. (And I considered putting Telly Sevalas in the best list.) But in both cases, they didn't quite make the cut.
HOWEVER, I don't hate Toby Stephens in DaD. I love his sneer. But I agree he performed well below his ability. Being handed the most absurd part of the movie didn't help.
Toby Stephens in DAD is Alan B'Stard. And once you see it you can't unsee it.
What a fool the man is. I really do think that Truss might see her 49 days beaten.
From the same Twitter feed
“ 🚨NEW: Andy Burnham will increase international aid spending from the current 0.2% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP
It will cost roughly +£16.5Bn”
Doesn’t say if it’s per year or life of parliament
Well we know what a 0.5% increase would be and that'd be something like 0.5%*3bn - so 15 Billion a year seems right.
I'm sure the Indian space programme will be quite pleased.
That will be a gradual increase I think - perhaps a real 0.5% by 2030 as opposed to "0.5% minus bits plundered for other things"? I do not see a step change when defence is scrabbling around for money.
Several points:
- It's a differentiator from both SKS and the other parties. - It will be argued that this is a way of keeping refugees / migrants at home, and better than sending in gunboats or big men waving sticks. - Politically, there's scope for changing the numbers by extracting that part of it which has been diverted to asylum accommodation. I'm not sure how useful that would be. The official number is 0.5% at present, but a big chunk of that is spent on "not overseas aid". - - It could be managed in a "promote the UK" sort of way, rather than aiming to do so strictly for maximum benefit.
Personally, I would prioritise our diplomatic network and the BBC World Service as highly, perhaps more highly.
Ok, fair play, an alternative view to my earlier post that Mahmood knows nothing nor has any interest in economics:
What a good chancellor should do is to take decisions that allow people to better themselves – and make them feel that this is likely to happen over the next few years. You do not need to be good at economics to do that; ou need to be good at politics. As Stanley Baldwin said when Winston Churchill, offered the post of chancellor in 1924, protested that he was no good with numbers, “They give you the numbers.”
Ok, fair play, an alternative view to my earlier post that Mahmood knows nothing nor has any interest in economics:
What a good chancellor should do is to take decisions that allow people to better themselves – and make them feel that this is likely to happen over the next few years. You do not need to be good at economics to do that; you need to be good at politics. As Stanley Baldwin said when Winston Churchill, offered the post of chancellor in 1924, protested that he was no good with numbers, “They give you the numbers.”
Ok, fair play, an alternative view to my earlier post that Mahmood knows nothing nor has any interest in economics:
What a good chancellor should do is to take decisions that allow people to better themselves – and make them feel that this is likely to happen over the next few years. You do not need to be good at economics to do that; you need to be good at politics. As Stanley Baldwin said when Winston Churchill, offered the post of chancellor in 1924, protested that he was no good with numbers, “They give you the numbers.”
What a fool the man is. I really do think that Truss might see her 49 days beaten.
From the same Twitter feed
“ 🚨NEW: Andy Burnham will increase international aid spending from the current 0.2% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP
It will cost roughly +£16.5Bn”
Doesn’t say if it’s per year or life of parliament
Well we know what a 0.5% increase would be and that'd be something like 0.5%*3bn - so 15 Billion a year seems right.
I'm sure the Indian space programme will be quite pleased.
That will be a gradual increase I think - perhaps 0.5% by 2030? I do not see that doing a step change when defence is scrabbling around for money.
Several points:
- It's a differentiator from both SKS and the other parties. - It will be argued that this is a way of keeping refugees / migrants at home, and better than sending in gunboats or big men waving sticks. - Politically, there's scope for changing the numbers by extracting that part of it which has been diverted to asylum accommodation. I'm not sure how useful that would be. The official number is 0.5% at present, but a big chunk of that is spent on "not overseas aid". - - It could be managed in a "promote the UK" sort of way, rather than aiming to do so strictly for maximum benefit.
Personally, I would prioritise our shrinking diplomatic network and the BBC World Service as highly, perhaps more highly.
Look the main thing is that we're not exactly flush as a nation. The days have gone when a British suburban existence was the envy of the world. The average chap in Dubai is what they want.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Diamonds is poor, yes. Connery is too old and phoning it in. The plot is messy and ludicrous. It's actually a bit of a tawdy affair.
I think DAF is best forgotten altogether. I would go straight from OHMSS to the absurd Roger Moore voodoo one. (Which is one that gets worse for me with every viewing )
Yes, it palls. But an invigorating reboot at the time. Moore was fresh and up for it.
But those Bonds of the late 60s early 70s, whilst not the best, are fond to me because they were the films my dad started taking me to, mano a boyo.
The squirm as James went into Jill St John's dress, my dad sat next to me in the cinema, is still with me.
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Agree with the best.
Charles Gray in drag in Diamonds are Forever and, sadly, Toby Stephens in Die Another Day are sadly the worst.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT wasn't that good either, and has provided endless spoofing material in the decades since.
Charles Gray was so excerable, I actually suppressed it from my memory. He definitely should be in the worst list.
Donald Pleasance was very m'eh. I considered including him. (And I considered putting Telly Sevalas in the best list.) But in both cases, they didn't quite make the cut.
HOWEVER, I don't hate Toby Stephens in DaD. I love his sneer. But I agree he performed well below his ability. Being handed the most absurd part of the movie didn't help.
Nobody in Die Another Day can really be blamed for the plot and script.
I think of DAD is like the film Big Trouble in Little China. The script is too shit to be dramatic, but also not really funny enough to be a spoof. The actors just ham it up as best they can. I like the film by the way. BTILC not DAD. I have some standards.
The fact that both Tories and Labour are on the rise is interesting.
Crossover in sight
When Reform start looking like just another party rather than our next Government, a chnk of supporters - those who don't normaly vote - will drift away to the Can't Be Arsed Party.
Especially if Farage is out (second by-election, not the first).
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It really isn't; both of the Connery movies that follow it -From Russia with Love and Goldfinger- are better.
It is, however, better than all the Roger Moore ones, and most of the Brosnan and Craig movies.
Errrr. No.
Ask me which I'd put on right now (which is my way of discerning the most entertaining film) I'm putting Octopussy, Spy Who Loved Me, View to a Kill, and probably For Your Eyes Only on before I reach for Dr No.
WRT the cabinet, Burnham has not shown any interest in foreign affairs in his speeches so far and his history doesn't suggest much different. I wonder if it would be a good move, given the 'never here' stuff about Starmer to appoint a foreign secretary of very high quality and looks OK in a suit and give them more the role analogous to USA Secretary of State in the days when that role did the foreign stuff and everyone knew who they were and the USA was a proper country. They could do most of the going abroad bit leaving Burnham to be available for more Everton matches domestic concerns- which is obviously where his interest lies. Cooper has been invisible in the role, Lammy was not much more so. A Miliband might do. Or they could job share.
I haven't noticed Cooper (as you say). However I hear better reports from people who have followed in more detail.
I'm with the theory that the PM can only be really down on the detail of maybe 2-4 areas. Burnham will be all about domestic as that is a) what he is actually interested in and b) where the required "it feels better" will come from.
The other areas need competent ministers who can be left to it, without detailed management.
I've been really enjoying all the media moaning about how he has not told them very much in the first 4 minutes, which I think vindicates his strategy of not telling them much in the first 4 minutes. I'd see that as a way of him defining himself before they do.
One wildcard I half-wonder about will be something about wild camping in England. That would help with younger votes. There may also be something about paths to access access land, which can often be impossible to reach legally.
Okay, if we're doing James Bond, instead of what's the best movie, what's the worst movie, why don't we spin it round a bit and say who are the best baddies and who are the worst baddies.
Let me start. In no particular order, the best baddies are
- Goldfinger, - Zorin from A View to a Kill, - the Sean Bean character in GoldenEye - the Jonathan Pryce character in Tomorrow Never Dies - the drug dealer in Licence to Kill - Scaramanga in the otherwsie forgettable Man with the Golden Gun - And, of course, Rosa Klebb and Donald Grant in from Russia with Love
I'm going to give an honorable mention to Skyfall's Raoul Silva
The worst: - Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace - Whittaker from The Living Daylights - Blofeld in Spectre (how did they fuck up with Christoph Walz???) - Renard from The World is not Enough
Agree with the best.
Charles Gray in drag in Diamonds are Forever and, sadly, Toby Stephens in Die Another Day are sadly the worst.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT wasn't that good either, and has provided endless spoofing material in the decades since.
Charles Gray was so excerable, I actually suppressed it from my memory. He definitely should be in the worst list.
Donald Pleasance was very m'eh. I considered including him. (And I considered putting Telly Sevalas in the best list.) But in both cases, they didn't quite make the cut.
HOWEVER, I don't hate Toby Stephens in DaD. I love his sneer. But I agree he performed well below his ability. Being handed the most absurd part of the movie didn't help.
Nobody in Die Another Day can really be blamed for the plot and script.
I think of DAD is like the film Big Trouble in Little China. The script is too shit to be dramatic, but also not really funny enough to be a spoof. The actors just ham it up as best they can. I like the film by the way. BTILC not DAD. I have some standards.
The best plots tend to be the ones from the books. Same with Morse. Although, TV wise, some of the Endeavours were very solidly constructed. Certainly compared to the Lewises. I won't be revisiting them even under the most constrained of circumstances.
Completely extraordinary to be top in the polls - as in this one - but at the same time everyone knows you are toast. It's a bit like watching England be 1-0 up against Argentina and knowing we were going to lose. Except this time it is guiltily and hugely enjoyable.
What a fool the man is. I really do think that Truss might see her 49 days beaten.
From the same Twitter feed
“ 🚨NEW: Andy Burnham will increase international aid spending from the current 0.2% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP
It will cost roughly +£16.5Bn”
Doesn’t say if it’s per year or life of parliament
Well we know what a 0.5% increase would be and that'd be something like 0.5%*3bn - so 15 Billion a year seems right.
I'm sure the Indian space programme will be quite pleased.
That will be a gradual increase I think - perhaps 0.5% by 2030? I do not see that doing a step change when defence is scrabbling around for money.
Several points:
- It's a differentiator from both SKS and the other parties. - It will be argued that this is a way of keeping refugees / migrants at home, and better than sending in gunboats or big men waving sticks. - Politically, there's scope for changing the numbers by extracting that part of it which has been diverted to asylum accommodation. I'm not sure how useful that would be. The official number is 0.5% at present, but a big chunk of that is spent on "not overseas aid". - - It could be managed in a "promote the UK" sort of way, rather than aiming to do so strictly for maximum benefit.
Personally, I would prioritise our shrinking diplomatic network and the BBC World Service as highly, perhaps more highly.
Look the main thing is that we're not exactly flush as a nation. The days have gone when a British suburban existence was the envy of the world. The average chap in Dubai is what they want.
I've tried to reflect that. If this year's number was 0.2% (as posted) I'll be interested to see what they can get that to without any extra money.
Possibly disaster reflief by the MOD? If that has not been ali-shuffled already.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It really isn't; both of the Connery movies that follow it -From Russia with Love and Goldfinger- are better.
It is, however, better than all the Roger Moore ones, and most of the Brosnan and Craig movies.
Errrr. No.
Ask me which I'd put on right now (which is my way of discerning the most entertaining film) I'm putting Octopussy, Spy Who Loved Me, View to a Kill, and probably For Your Eyes Only on before I reach for Dr No.
WRT the cabinet, Burnham has not shown any interest in foreign affairs in his speeches so far and his history doesn't suggest much different. I wonder if it would be a good move, given the 'never here' stuff about Starmer to appoint a foreign secretary of very high quality and looks OK in a suit and give them more the role analogous to USA Secretary of State in the days when that role did the foreign stuff and everyone knew who they were and the USA was a proper country. They could do most of the going abroad bit leaving Burnham to be available for more Everton matches domestic concerns- which is obviously where his interest lies. Cooper has been invisible in the role, Lammy was not much more so. A Miliband might do. Or they could job share.
I haven't noticed Cooper (as you say). However I hear better reports from people who have followed in more detail.
I'm with the theory that the PM can only be really down on the detail of maybe 2-4 areas. Burnham will be all about domestic as that is a) what he is actually interested in and b) where the required "it feels better" will come from.
The other areas need competent ministers who can be left to it, without detailed management.
I've been really enjoying all the media moaning about how he has not told them very much in the first 4 minutes, which I think vindicates his strategy of not telling them much in the first 4 minutes. I'd see that as a way of him defining himself before they do.
One wildcard I half-wonder about will be something about wild camping in England. That would help with younger votes. There may also be something about paths to access access land, which can often be impossible to reach legally.
Time will tell.
Wild camping and access? Your cause is noble but if the average voter gave a damn politicians would have seen to it already.
What a fool the man is. I really do think that Truss might see her 49 days beaten.
From the same Twitter feed
“ 🚨NEW: Andy Burnham will increase international aid spending from the current 0.2% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP
It will cost roughly +£16.5Bn”
Doesn’t say if it’s per year or life of parliament
Well we know what a 0.5% increase would be and that'd be something like 0.5%*3bn - so 15 Billion a year seems right.
I'm sure the Indian space programme will be quite pleased.
That will be a gradual increase I think - perhaps 0.5% by 2030? I do not see that doing a step change when defence is scrabbling around for money.
Several points:
- It's a differentiator from both SKS and the other parties. - It will be argued that this is a way of keeping refugees / migrants at home, and better than sending in gunboats or big men waving sticks. - Politically, there's scope for changing the numbers by extracting that part of it which has been diverted to asylum accommodation. I'm not sure how useful that would be. The official number is 0.5% at present, but a big chunk of that is spent on "not overseas aid". - - It could be managed in a "promote the UK" sort of way, rather than aiming to do so strictly for maximum benefit.
Personally, I would prioritise our shrinking diplomatic network and the BBC World Service as highly, perhaps more highly.
Look the main thing is that we're not exactly flush as a nation. The days have gone when a British suburban existence was the envy of the world. The average chap in Dubai is what they want.
I've tried to reflect that. If this year's number was 0.2% (as posted) I'll be interested to see what they can get that to without any extra money.
Without any extra money it should get to less than 0.2% as we grow the economy so the same money becomes a smaller percentage.
Use some of the proceeds of growth to fix other issues and address the massive deficit, before we piss it on NGOs.
If Burnham really is going to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, it's the best news we've had for a very long time in my opinion. He deserves to go ahead in the polls for a while at least.
Not on in his other tax and spend and nationalise policies but this one policy is sensible
I appreciate it's not your cup of tea but I suspect 'tax and spend and nationalise policies' are overall vote winners rather than vote losers. Especially if the tax increases are directed at high earners and the wealthy.
Until they start to leave the country, growth slows, unemployment rises and average wages fall and industry becomes more inefficient and less customer focused and with more union strikes again
Labour achieve better growth than the Tories.
Average UK GDP growth 1997 to 2010 = 2.2% Average UK GDP growth 2010 to 2024 = 1.7%
Regarding the wealthy who care more for their money than their country: tax UK citizens wherever they live, it should be the price of citizenship.
Well, since most long term exiles still can't vote, despite many broken promises, I think there needs to be a complete rethink about the several million Brits who live overseas. Every time some prat of a Tory says that EU citizens in the UK should lose the EU withdrawal agreement protections, I want to remind them that this cuts both ways, and a large number of forced returnees to the UK would send the boys round to the Tories, if it ever happened.
Completely extraordinary to be top in the polls - as in this one - but at the same time everyone knows you are toast. It's a bit like watching England be 1-0 up against Argentina and knowing we were going to lose. Except this time it is guiltily and hugely enjoyable.
Relief Starmer is gone and Burnham shows charisma and a plan
I expect Burnham to receive a good poll bounce just at the time Farage is in some difficulty
As long as Burnham keeps Miliband away from COE it could be a significant change in UK politics
WRT the cabinet, Burnham has not shown any interest in foreign affairs in his speeches so far and his history doesn't suggest much different. I wonder if it would be a good move, given the 'never here' stuff about Starmer to appoint a foreign secretary of very high quality and looks OK in a suit and give them more the role analogous to USA Secretary of State in the days when that role did the foreign stuff and everyone knew who they were and the USA was a proper country. They could do most of the going abroad bit leaving Burnham to be available for more Everton matches domestic concerns- which is obviously where his interest lies. Cooper has been invisible in the role, Lammy was not much more so. A Miliband might do. Or they could job share.
I haven't noticed Cooper (as you say). However I hear better reports from people who have followed in more detail.
I'm with the theory that the PM can only be really down on the detail of maybe 2-4 areas. Burnham will be all about domestic as that is a) what he is actually interested in and b) where the required "it feels better" will come from.
The other areas need competent ministers who can be left to it, without detailed management.
I've been really enjoying all the media moaning about how he has not told them very much in the first 4 minutes, which I think vindicates his strategy of not telling them much in the first 4 minutes. I'd see that as a way of him defining himself before they do.
One wildcard I half-wonder about will be something about wild camping in England. That would help with younger votes. There may also be something about paths to access access land, which can often be impossible to reach legally.
Time will tell.
Wild camping and access? Your cause is noble but if the average voter gave a damn politicians would have seen to it already.
Add it to the cause of development funding and getting it back to its former level, discussed above. SFAICS this step will mean that at the next election Labour get precisely two votes: Rory Stewart and me. Which only goes to show that minorities of 70,000,000 to 2 are sometimes right.
I'll tell you the worst Bond film. Thunderball. Those interminable underwater scenes where you have no clue who is who because they're all in masks and wetsuits.
Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever are the worst.
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
Dr No is the best Bond film. Just really as it has the advantage of being first.
It really isn't; both of the Connery movies that follow it -From Russia with Love and Goldfinger- are better.
It is, however, better than all the Roger Moore ones, and most of the Brosnan and Craig movies.
Errrr. No.
Ask me which I'd put on right now (which is my way of discerning the most entertaining film) I'm putting Octopussy, Spy Who Loved Me, View to a Kill, and probably For Your Eyes Only on before I reach for Dr No.
No offence but that is shallow.
Octopussy is the best "High Camp" Bond movie. It's fun and well paced, and it doesn't take itself too seriously. Plus, Steven Berkoff as the utterly deranged (and sadly underused) General Orlov is brilliant.
Plus the actor who played Kamal Khan was also a baddie in a Columbo, where -I think- he is a restaurant critic or owner.
Comments
OHMSS is remarkably good, which is astonishing given Lazenby's limited acting abilities.
All credit to his co-stars and, especially, the Director.
What a fool the man is. I really do think that Truss might see her 49 days beaten.
I thought Nige said no more after the May election cut-off date?
I think Bond had a slightly different facemask.
“ 🚨NEW: Andy Burnham will increase international aid spending from the current 0.2% of GDP to 0.7% of GDP
It will cost roughly +£16.5Bn”
Doesn’t say if it’s per year or life of parliament
He was not bad in it.
So this one could become Bond Chatroom rather than Ref Tory crossover?
I'm sure the Indian space programme will be quite pleased.
Charles Gray in drag in Diamonds are Forever and, sadly, Toby Stephens in Die Another Day are sadly the worst.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT wasn't that good either, and has provided endless spoofing material in the decades since.
The Afghanistan cinematography, the airbase attack, the cargo net fight (and the amazing music throughout) followed by the assault on the Russi...
Ah, I see the problem.
I've read all the books. I used to have a complete collection of the pan original paperbacks. My parents lost it in a clearout.
Meanwhile the tax free amount you can earn is frozen for the foreseeable future.
Dig deep wage slaves.
Regardless it’s a stupid move because he’s now going to burn a lot of political capital on this and will be accused of having the wrong priorities.
It knows where you're going, but at the slightest sign of trouble gets very confused about the best way to get you there and ends up taking you a ridiculously long way round to achieve nothing.
That's how bloody good he was.
@JohnRentoul
Burnham plots Ed Miliband shake-up of Foreign Office as he readies policy blitz for first day as PM | The Independent
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2078539419343368582
====
I'm sorrry? What? Ed M and foreign policy? Has he ever shown the slightest interest?
@JohnRentoul
Burnham plots Ed Miliband shake-up of Foreign Office as he readies policy blitz for first day as PM | The Independent
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/2078539419343368582
====
I'm sorrry? What? Ed M and foreign policy? Has he ever shown the slightest interest?
I recommended this move a very long time ago here.
All this talk about Bond when we should be concentrating on the cricket.
Ben Kentish
@BenKentish
·
1h
My timeline is full of scientists, tech bosses, successful investors, top entrepreneurs and expert academics warning that abolishing the DSIT would be a terrible idea, plus a few Westminster commentators with zero expertise in any of the above areas going “Oh seems fine to me.”
https://x.com/BenKentish/status/2078533701793972492
Reform's lead slashed to only 1 point over Labour.
➡️ REF 23% (-1) (lowest since 2024)
🌹 LAB 22% (+3) (highest since April 2026)
🌳 CON 20% (+2) (highest since April 2025)
🌍 GRN 14% (-2)
🔶 LD 11% (-1)
https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/2078555405022826813
I'd say Hampshire are favourites at the moment.
Just look at the number of Nobel laureates and sort of on topic and world class spies, that they've produced.
Politics is too depressing.
🚨 Latest Opinium
@ObserverUK
poll 🚨
Reform's lead slashed to only 1 point over Labour.
➡️ REF 23% (-1) (lowest since 2024)
🌹 LAB 22% (+3) (highest since April 2026)
🌳 CON 20% (+2) (highest since April 2025)
🌍 GRN 14% (-2)
🔶 LD 11% (-1)
https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/2078555405022826813?s=20
Still read Morse when I'm in bed with the flu.
Noticing the 'problems' is just part of the experience.
ETA better still if spent building waste recycling plants for those countries who chuck everything in the sea. A double whammy of jobs and a cleaner environment.
Donald Pleasance was very m'eh. I considered including him. (And I considered putting Telly Sevalas in the best list.) But in both cases, they didn't quite make the cut.
HOWEVER, I don't hate Toby Stephens in DaD. I love his sneer. But I agree he performed well below his ability. Being handed the most absurd part of the movie didn't help.
It is, however, better than all the Roger Moore ones, and most of the Brosnan and Craig movies.
Several points:
- It's a differentiator from both SKS and the other parties.
- It will be argued that this is a way of keeping refugees / migrants at home, and better than sending in gunboats or big men waving sticks.
- Politically, there's scope for changing the numbers by extracting that part of it which has been diverted to asylum accommodation. I'm not sure how useful that would be. The official number is 0.5% at present, but a big chunk of that is spent on "not overseas aid".
- - It could be managed in a "promote the UK" sort of way, rather than aiming to do so strictly for maximum benefit.
Personally, I would prioritise our diplomatic network and the BBC World Service as highly, perhaps more highly.
What a good chancellor should do is to take decisions that allow people to better themselves – and make them feel that this is likely to happen over the next few years. You do not need to be good at economics to do that; ou need to be good at politics. As Stanley Baldwin said when Winston Churchill, offered the post of chancellor in 1924, protested that he was no good with numbers, “They give you the numbers.”
https://www.aol.com/articles/voices-choice-shabana-mahmood-tells-124434000.html
What a good chancellor should do is to take decisions that allow people to better themselves – and make them feel that this is likely to happen over the next few years. You do not need to be good at economics to do that; you need to be good at politics. As Stanley Baldwin said when Winston Churchill, offered the post of chancellor in 1924, protested that he was no good with numbers, “They give you the numbers.”
https://www.aol.com/articles/voices-choice-shabana-mahmood-tells-124434000.html
But those Bonds of the late 60s early 70s, whilst not the best, are fond to me because they were the films my dad started taking me to, mano a boyo.
The squirm as James went into Jill St John's dress, my dad sat next to me in the cinema, is still with me.
I think of DAD is like the film Big Trouble in Little China. The script is too shit to be dramatic, but also not really funny enough to be a spoof. The actors just ham it up as best they can. I like the film by the way. BTILC not DAD. I have some standards.
https://news.sky.com/story/british-runner-josh-kerr-breaks-world-record-for-mile-which-had-stood-for-27-years-13564688
3m42.66s
That’s pretty dramatic.
And isn’t it a shame the ground is half empty?
Especially if Farage is out (second by-election, not the first).
Ask me which I'd put on right now (which is my way of discerning the most entertaining film) I'm putting Octopussy, Spy Who Loved Me, View to a Kill, and probably For Your Eyes Only on before I reach for Dr No.
I'm with the theory that the PM can only be really down on the detail of maybe 2-4 areas. Burnham will be all about domestic as that is a) what he is actually interested in and b) where the required "it feels better" will come from.
The other areas need competent ministers who can be left to it, without detailed management.
I've been really enjoying all the media moaning about how he has not told them very much in the first 4 minutes, which I think vindicates his strategy of not telling them much in the first 4 minutes. I'd see that as a way of him defining himself before they do.
One wildcard I half-wonder about will be something about wild camping in England. That would help with younger votes. There may also be something about paths to access access land, which can often be impossible to reach legally.
Time will tell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/articles/cx2jl1wge2po
Congratulations, though even I could do a mile in less than 27 years.
Possibly disaster reflief by the MOD? If that has not been ali-shuffled already.
Use some of the proceeds of growth to fix other issues and address the massive deficit, before we piss it on NGOs.
George Cottrell opened account with secretive overseas payments company just days before it was used to channel “unexplained” £500,000 to Reform
Cottrell became client via his entity in Montenegro — immediately before payment NCA can’t trace
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/2078538701429239979?s=20
I expect Burnham to receive a good poll bounce just at the time Farage is in some difficulty
As long as Burnham keeps Miliband away from COE it could be a significant change in UK politics
Does Mustique mean they were in with Princess Margaret's friends?
Quansah
Konsa
Guéhi
Spence
Rice
Saka
Eze
Rogers
Rashford
Toney
I bet Arteta is dead pleased to learn injuried Rice and Saka are playing a pointless match, rather than play somebody like Manioo.
Edit - Apparently Mainoo is injuried as well...
Plus the actor who played Kamal Khan was also a baddie in a Columbo, where -I think- he is a restaurant critic or owner.
World's gone mad.