For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I think I agree with all of that :-)
Jonathan Pryce is one of my favourite actors, and the idea of him as some crazed media mogul was a good one. But the movie just didn't work, which was a real shame.
And Toby Stephens sneer was simply awesome in Die Another Day.
Easily the sexiest women. A semi-plausible plot. A believable villain. Real sadism and cruelty which drew quite some flak in 1965. It was the only Bond film to be almost given an 'X' rating. Great gadgets. Probably the best opening and closing scenes in the franchise. Only spoiled slightly by the underwater scenes being a tad too long.
Easily the sexiest women. A semi-plausible plot. A believable villain. Real sadism and cruelty which drew quite some flak in 1965. It was the only Bond film to be almost given an 'X' rating. Great gadgets. Probably the best opening and closing scenes in the franchise. Only spoiled slightly by the underwater scenes being a tad too long.
I also have a soft spot for OHMSS mainly because it was one of a kind, and quite a contrast to all the others.
OHMSS stays very true to the book. It would have been a truly superb film with Connery, who would not have been 'posh-dubbed' for a third of the film like Lazenby, and a more appropriate actor for Blofeld than Telly Savalas.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
All the Bond films, after Connery were, without exception, remake rubbish.
I have a book somewhere with a chart showing which plots were recycled. It was quite surprising how many are. I think the Thunderball plot was the most popular recycle.
Because Thunderball was a book written by Fleming to specifically be a movie, and Kevin McClory helped him.
McClory then spent the best part of the next 40 years trying to remake the film mutiple times, with multiple lawsuits along the way.
Easily the sexiest women. A semi-plausible plot. A believable villain. Real sadism and cruelty which drew quite some flak in 1965. It was the only Bond film to be almost given an 'X' rating. Great gadgets. Probably the best opening and closing scenes in the franchise. Only spoiled slightly by the underwater scenes being a tad too long.
Agreed.
and if you watch the underwater scenes carefully, there are the most horrendous continuity problems.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
What about the charisma vacuum who played the villain in For Your Eyes Only? Rubbish. The oversized computer coding typewriter that the plot revolved around showed more brooding menace.
favourite Bond villains? Adolfo Celi as Emilio Largo in Thunderball. Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe: SPECTRE agent in Thunderball
As a 6 year old I was taken to see it with my father (now 90). I often wonder if Claudine Auger as Dominique "Domino" Derval left an imprint? May have also led me to go and live and work in the Caribbean....
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
What about the charisma vacuum who played the villain in For Your Eyes Only? Rubbish.
That was poor, but I actually quite like Moore in that film.
Mr. 30, I seem to recall (perhaps from a discussion as long ago as school...) that certain Bond themed thingummyjigs couldn't be used in Never Say Never Again, such as the handgun not being the Walter PPK (was it PPK? I think there might also have been an issue with the Goldeneye videogame, where it was the PP7).
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
People with mental and physical disabilities will get cash still.
BBC - Jeremy Corbyn urges caution over Labour leadership poll
The YouGov poll for The Times of 1,400 eligible voters put Mr Corbyn on 53%, 32 points ahead of Andy Burnham. - The left-wing MP said his campaign was "going very well" but ballot papers had not yet been sent out.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
People with mental and physical disabilities will get cash still.
Excellent news for Scottish Labour. Should blow Nicola out of the water just in time for the Holyrood elections.
As the Nationalist commentators have pointed out, that rather depends on him being able to get past whichever random nonentity is crowned SLAB leader this week, none of whom are socialists.
It is also predicated on the rather quaint and almost entirely false notion that Scots vote for the SNP because they implement left-wing policies.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
What about the charisma vacuum who played the villain in For Your Eyes Only? Rubbish.
That was poor, but I actually quite like Moore in that film.
Yes. Moore is my favourite Bond. And the Thatcher cameo was entertaining too.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
I am not disputing that. This story is interesting for what it tells us about the EU negotiations, i.e they are going nowhere and Ministers are seriously considering presenting measures they could have adopted in any event as the fruits of "renegotiation". This must point to an early referendum (quaere June 2016) and serious splits in the Conservative Party if they realise what Cameron is up to.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
It will be a seismic event for British politics, this Corbyn thing. But it could could play out in a variety of contrasting ways - just like an earthquake changes the landscape but in ways that are not wholly predictable. A useful topic for a thread, I think.
Corbyn is the only one trying, while the other three sit around not saying all that much, just wringing their hands. Reluctantly I say Corbyn deserves to win.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
I am not disputing that. This story is interesting for what it tells us about the EU negotiations, i.e they are going nowhere and Ministers are seriously considering presenting measures they could have adopted in any event as the fruits of "renegotiation". This must point to an early referendum (quaere June 2016) and serious splits in the Conservative Party if they realise what Cameron is up to.
They are hoping a pro-EU Labour wouldn't be rude enough to ask about it (assuming they look up from killing each other long enough to notice), and that a pro-EU BBC & SKY wouldn't be so inopportune as to run stories about it if they did, and that sufficiently few people will be listening to the kippers as to keep the fuss below the radar, letting the pro-EU Conservative leadership pull the wool over the public's eyes. Has a familiar ring about it.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Zenia Onatopp (great name) was a superb villain side kick. Getting all hot and bothered as she was machine gunning computer operators was made brilliantly believable by the lovely Famke Jansson. Surely one of the few actresses to get success out of the franchise.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
One almost gets the feeling the Government is making these announcements to wind up the Left and get them even more motivated to vote for JC.
I say that half-jokingly - I would not be surprised if that is part of their thinking.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Yeah, well, you're wrong about Walken ;-) He was totally believable as a crazed, but highly intelligent and charming, psychotic. I love how he laughs at the computer profile of Bond being 'very dangerous' and 'licenced to kill', nods for the KGB infiltrator to be thrown down the pump test chute to be made mincemeat and laughs as he realises the joke's on him as he falls off the Golden Gate Bridge. Legend.
Interestingly, the plots of AVTAK and Goldfinger have strong similarities. My favourite scene with Frobe is the golf match with Connery - brilliant stuff.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
So you are an able bodied teenager that has been living in care for the past ten years, or an able bodied orphan, and you reach the age of 18, and due to your poor life opportunities, you can't immediately get a job... who is paying for you to live ? If anything there should be a taper between statutory welfare rights at 18 to earned rights at say 25.
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
I agree. If the new welfare rules go ahead they should not be considered any part of the "renegotiation triumph", rather an affirmation of our weakness of sovereignty. They are nothing to do with the EU but are a change to domestic law which could have been implemented at any time without recourse to the EU. Gradually the case for NO is building, if only someone could grab a hold of it and get organised!
Famke was the most gorgeous by a country mile. She's in Hemlock Grove and doesn't appear to have aged much at all. If she's been under the knife - it doesn't show.
Zenia Onatopp (great name) was a superb villain side kick. Getting all hot and bothered as she was machine gunning computer operators was made brilliantly believable by the lovely Famke Jansson. Surely one of the few actresses to get success out of the franchise.
Always makes me think of Gladiators, because her stunt woman was Eunice Someoneorother, who absolutely crushed her competitors (and the female Gladiators too, come to think of it).
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Latest leftie set of ideas from the IPPR thinktank. Kind of sums up why the Blairites have few ideas. File under "General statements of the bleeding obvious"
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Frobe was also in Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines, (was hilarious), Is Paris Burning, a High Wind in Jamaica, and The Longest Day.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Everyone says that Pryce is excellent as the High Sparrow in A Game of Thrones, polite and soft-spoken, but quietly fanatical and ruthless.
Always makes me think of Gladiators, because her stunt woman was Eunice Someoneorother, who absolutely crushed her competitors (and the female Gladiators too, come to think of it).
Huthart.
Incidentally, she ended up involved in the phone hacking stuff, as she was a stunt double for pretty much every brunette actress in 2000s action films.
I'm not surprised. She was immensely fit/strong. It was quite amusing to watch her be better than most of the female Gladiators. (Gladiatrices, I suppose).
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union. You do need to renegotiate your membership to apply a four year residence test to all those seeking in-work benefits within your jurisdiction. The story points very strongly to an early referendum.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
So you are an able bodied teenager that has been living in care for the past ten years, or an able bodied orphan, and you reach the age of 18, and due to your poor life opportunities, you can't immediately get a job... who is paying for you to live ? If anything there should be a taper between statutory welfare rights at 18 to earned rights at say 25.
Transitional care relief for vulnerable young adults.
Problem solved.
The point TC makes is a good one though. Forget the EU for a second, and think about how we get young people into a culture of work. The best way is for them to actually work. Someone who's 27 and has never worked is probably never going to work. You need to get people into the culture of work as soon as possible. And the best way to do that is to require a history of NI payments before benefits are payable.
This would also act as an incentive to young people aged 15, 16 or 17 to work hard at school. If you know there are no government handouts until you've worked, then being qualified to work matters more. And parents - realising they (and not the state) will be subsidising none working young adults are much more likely to give their kids a kick up the arse.
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
I am not disputing that. This story is interesting for what it tells us about the EU negotiations, i.e they are going nowhere and Ministers are seriously considering presenting measures they could have adopted in any event as the fruits of "renegotiation". This must point to an early referendum (quaere June 2016) and serious splits in the Conservative Party if they realise what Cameron is up to.
Serious splits? Maybe. Osborne is locked in with Cameron and Cameron will be looking to stand down soon after a Yes vote. But, if Cameron upsets more than half his party, the person who will suffer is Osborne, not Cameron. The party may postpone the split to await the outcome of who is Cameron's successor. Meanwhile the EC continues to fall apart over irreconcilible policies of Schengen vs Immigration vs HRA etc etc
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Everyone says that Pryce is excellent as the High Sparrow in A Game of Thrones, polite and soft-spoken, but quietly fanatical and ruthless.
Definitely. He has this steel about him, usualy unthreatening but frustrating for those playing games around him, but without getting loud or demonstratve, he then turns up the glare and the threat, and you can see people would quake before his judgement.
On the "Should I lay Jowell?" question @RichardN asked (sort of).
If you make the following assumptions:
Likelihood of Corbyn being elected 60% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given Corbyn 30% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 35% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given not Corbyn 70% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 70%
The answer is yes, out to 3.85.
Of course anyone else's opinion on the above could be radically different.
I'm keeping an eye on the market - which is a lot slower to react than the leadership contest.
Might be worth giving some thought to the electoral impact of a Corbyn led Labour party, assuming he manages to keep the parliamentry party intact.
I suspect some of the voters that have migrated left to the Greens and other minor left wing outfits will happily return.
What impact will this have on the LibDems - they seem to have taken a bit of a leftist route also - would Norman Lamb had been in a better position to hoover up some more centrist voters.
One of the best hopes for Labour under Corbyn is surely Scotland, however I can't help but think that SLAB remains a busted flush. I actually see the Tories being beneficiaries in border regions as the SNP might try to out-Corbyn Corbyn.
Not sure how Wales goes - Lib Dems might pick up here - not really much sign of a nationalist upsurge.
England is where Labour could struggle most. They will probably strengthen in the North East and there will be pockets of resistance elsewhere, however hanging on to everything else will be a challenge.
Overall if Corbyn leads into 2020 GE, I suspect 170 seats would be a good result for Labour.
About 67 per cent of trade union affiliates support Mr Corbyn, compared with 55 per cent of registered supporters who paid £3 to vote, and 49 per cent of full Labour members.
One of the best hopes for Labour under Corbyn is surely Scotland, however I can't help but think that SLAB remains a busted flush. I actually see the Tories being beneficiaries in border regions as the SNP might try to out-Corbyn Corbyn.
Not unless SLAB suddenly becomes a separatist party. People vote for the SNP because they are Nationalists not because they are lefties. I would be willing to bet that if the SNP moved right to somewhere around John Major their vote would hardly change at all.
Always makes me think of Gladiators, because her stunt woman was Eunice Someoneorother, who absolutely crushed her competitors (and the female Gladiators too, come to think of it).
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
So you are an able bodied teenager that has been living in care for the past ten years, or an able bodied orphan, and you reach the age of 18, and due to your poor life opportunities, you can't immediately get a job... who is paying for you to live ? If anything there should be a taper between statutory welfare rights at 18 to earned rights at say 25.
Transitional care relief for vulnerable young adults.
Problem solved.
The point TC makes is a good one though. Forget the EU for a second, and think about how we get young people into a culture of work. The best way is for them to actually work. Someone who's 27 and has never worked is probably never going to work. You need to get people into the culture of work as soon as possible. And the best way to do that is to require a history of NI payments before benefits are payable.
This would also act as an incentive to young people aged 15, 16 or 17 to work hard at school. If you know there are no government handouts until you've worked, then being qualified to work matters more. And parents - realising they (and not the state) will be subsidising none working young adults are much more likely to give their kids a kick up the arse.
Absolutely. Tie it in with re-establishment of vocational courses 14-18 and grammar schools, and we may actually progress as a society....
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
There was also pussy galore….
Indeed there was - I'm working my way through the 50th anniversary edition of The Avengers, 40 dvds.
Somebody mentioned that Thunderball almost got an X certificate. The first film -Dr No - almost did too. It remains the only example of Bond killing a man in cold blood.
About 67 per cent of trade union affiliates support Mr Corbyn, compared with 55 per cent of registered supporters who paid £3 to vote, and 49 per cent of full Labour members.
Mind you: that means that even without the trade union affiliates and the £3 supporters, Corbyn would still be coasting to victory
About 67 per cent of trade union affiliates support Mr Corbyn, compared with 55 per cent of registered supporters who paid £3 to vote, and 49 per cent of full Labour members.
Looks as though Diane Abbott is a dead cert for Home Secretary…
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well There are any number of reasons why someone should not be receiving benefit, age isn't one of them (assuming they are an adult)
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
So you are an able bodied teenager that has been living in care for the past ten years, or an able bodied orphan, and you reach the age of 18, and due to your poor life opportunities, you can't immediately get a job... who is paying for you to live ? If anything there should be a taper between statutory welfare rights at 18 to earned rights at say 25.
Transitional care relief for vulnerable young adults.
Problem solved.
The point TC makes is a good one though. Forget the EU for a second, and think about how we get young people into a culture of work. The best way is for them to actually work. Someone who's 27 and has never worked is probably never going to work. You need to get people into the culture of work as soon as possible. And the best way to do that is to require a history of NI payments before benefits are payable.
This would also act as an incentive to young people aged 15, 16 or 17 to work hard at school. If you know there are no government handouts until you've worked, then being qualified to work matters more. And parents - realising they (and not the state) will be subsidising none working young adults are much more likely to give their kids a kick up the arse.
Absolutely. Tie it in with re-establishment of vocational courses 14-18 and grammar schools, and we may actually progress as a society....
I agree completely, the problem of course is the Toynbee Tendency who feel that living on benefits should be a lifestyle choice, rather than a lifeline at the expense of people who have got off their backsides and got a job... expect the Guardian to scream blue murder... shame
On the "Should I lay Jowell?" question @RichardN asked (sort of).
If you make the following assumptions:
Likelihood of Corbyn being elected 60% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given Corbyn 30% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 35% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given not Corbyn 70% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 70%
The answer is yes, out to 3.85.
Of course anyone else's opinion on the above could be radically different.
I'm keeping an eye on the market - which is a lot slower to react than the leadership contest.
Not sure why there is such a different set of probabilities of Jowell being the candidate given Corbyn | Not Corbyn ?
One of the best hopes for Labour under Corbyn is surely Scotland, however I can't help but think that SLAB remains a busted flush. I actually see the Tories being beneficiaries in border regions as the SNP might try to out-Corbyn Corbyn.
Not unless SLAB suddenly becomes a separatist party. People vote for the SNP because they are Nationalists not because they are lefties. I would be willing to bet that if the SNP moved right to somewhere around John Major their vote would hardly change at all.
I am not convinced that all of the votes SNP picked up from Labour in the GE were down to those people wanting independence. Undoubtedly some, but most of the shift came from SNP completely annihilating SLAB on the political stage.
I do wonder how the Chinese economy will end up going in the short term, and the impact that might have on foreign policy (particularly the islands to the east, also claimed by Japan/Taiwan, and the southern seas).
I do wonder how the Chinese economy will end up going in the short term, and the impact that might have on foreign policy (particularly the islands to the east, also claimed by Japan/Taiwan, and the southern seas).
China probably a bigger threat to world economic stability than Greece as of now
One of the best hopes for Labour under Corbyn is surely Scotland, however I can't help but think that SLAB remains a busted flush. I actually see the Tories being beneficiaries in border regions as the SNP might try to out-Corbyn Corbyn.
Not unless SLAB suddenly becomes a separatist party. People vote for the SNP because they are Nationalists not because they are lefties. I would be willing to bet that if the SNP moved right to somewhere around John Major their vote would hardly change at all.
No doubt a Scottish poster will correct me if I'm wrong. But I rather suspect a number of the SNP's voters are voting for it less because they want independence than because they genuinely believe the SNP is a radical leftist party that will stand up for their interests. Certainly it is difficult to see, otherwise, how they could poll the numbers they do when support for independence hasn't changed much these twelve months.
Therefore, a Corbyn-led Labour party might spark at least a partial revival - however, the irony is that to do so he would have to bulldoze what's left of SLAB and run it as a branch office from London, as hardly any of the surviving Labour leadership in Scotland support his views.
Of course, the fact is that the SNP are not particularly left-wing in practice (if they are left wing at all). But as long as they are not seen as part of some 'Establishment stitch up', that's probably good enough for the left wing vote in Scotland against a centrist Labour party.
(That was also in partial response to @SouthamObserver upthread.)
I do wonder how the Chinese economy will end up going in the short term, and the impact that might have on foreign policy (particularly the islands to the east, also claimed by Japan/Taiwan, and the southern seas).
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Which was written by Ian Fleming and arguably includes his best villain.
On the "Should I lay Jowell?" question @RichardN asked (sort of).
If you make the following assumptions:
Likelihood of Corbyn being elected 60% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given Corbyn 30% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 35% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given not Corbyn 70% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 70%
The answer is yes, out to 3.85.
Of course anyone else's opinion on the above could be radically different.
I'm keeping an eye on the market - which is a lot slower to react than the leadership contest.
Not sure why there is such a different set of probabilities of Jowell being the candidate given Corbyn | Not Corbyn ?
Because a Corbyn voter is more likely to back a candidate who is not the Blairite Jowell. And thus, to a certain extent, we would expect Corbyn and not_Jowell to rise and fall together.
Nick Palmer has argued that the two contests are largely independent.
But here's another view from Buzzfeed: "A shadow cabinet source who backs Jowell said the influx of new Corbyn-supporting members “probably would help” rivals such as Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, and Diane Abbott. All three MPs signed Jeremy Corbyn’s nomination papers to enable him to stand for the leader of the Labour party."
I think it's true to say new signups who would not have voted otherwise are going to back Corbyn (we know that) and probably not Jowell.
I do wonder how the Chinese economy will end up going in the short term, and the impact that might have on foreign policy (particularly the islands to the east, also claimed by Japan/Taiwan, and the southern seas).
China probably a bigger threat to world economic stability than Greece as of now
Both fooked long term
China isn't "fucked" long term.
But it does have a painful transition ahead of it. If you think of an economy having three outlets for economic activity: consumption, investment (also called Gross Capital Formation), and exports. In a normal economy, consumption is probably 60%, investment 20%, and exports+savings 20%.
In China, Gross Capital Formation is close to 50% of GDP. That is the dominant part of the Chinese economy, not exports. (And it's why people like @SeanT come back amazed: just look at the things the Chinese are building!)
Because the tenth investment dollar tends to earn a lower return than the first, high levels of Gross Capital Formation usually end in nasty recessions. South Korea, for example, during its mega growth period had two recessions where - each time - 25% was knocked off GDP. Spain, as an aside, had a Gross Capital Formation boom (all those apartments and golf villas in Andalucia) in the run up to the Eurozone crisis.
Essentially, China needs to rebalance its economy between consumption and investment, with the former rising, and the latter falling. And it will do that. But the transition will likely be extremely painful - for a year or two at least.
Always makes me think of Gladiators, because her stunt woman was Eunice Someoneorother, who absolutely crushed her competitors (and the female Gladiators too, come to think of it).
This story from the BBC is of considerable significance. If Ministers are considering this option seriously, they have all but given up on renegotiating the terms of British membership of the European Union...
Vote winner. Tough on welfare and seen to be tough on immigrants. Corbyn and the Guardianistas can protest and protest and protest...... Why are we waiting?
The no benefits for British Citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 will cause a shit storm, everyone is going to come out with this or that category of person that cant get money from anywhere else. Children in Care turning 18 springs immediately to mind.
Labour promised a two year delay in their manifesto, so .....
Just because Labour were going to behave like a bunch of idiots, its doesn't mean that the Tories should as well
Welfare rights should be earned by all able bodied adults.
So you are an able bodied teenager that has been living in care for the past ten years, or an able bodied orphan, and you reach the age of 18, and due to your poor life opportunities, you can't immediately get a job... who is paying for you to live ? If anything there should be a taper between statutory welfare rights at 18 to earned rights at say 25.
Transitional care relief for vulnerable young adults.
Problem solved.
The point TC makes is a good one though. Forget the EU for a second, and think about how we get young people into a culture of work. The best way is for them to actually work. Someone who's 27 and has never worked is probably never going to work. You need to get people into the culture of work as soon as possible. And the best way to do that is to require a history of NI payments before benefits are payable.
This would also act as an incentive to young people aged 15, 16 or 17 to work hard at school. If you know there are no government handouts until you've worked, then being qualified to work matters more. And parents - realising they (and not the state) will be subsidising none working young adults are much more likely to give their kids a kick up the arse.
Why is the answer always to penalise those out of work?
It's not even the only way to incentivise them.
And that's assuming you think the individuals concerned are the ones who need incentivising, rather than employers.
We're getting far too close to turning the endless blaming of "the youth of today" into government policy.
Absolutely. Tie it in with re-establishment of vocational courses 14-18 and grammar schools, and we may actually progress as a society....
Not grammar schools please. Like capital punishment, conscription and a BBC that only broadcasts truth as news, grammar schools belong to a past era that has gone and isn't coming back. What is more there will never be any sensible debate about actually implementing an education system fit for the 21st century all the time some group or another tries to put grammar schools onto the agenda.
On the "Should I lay Jowell?" question @RichardN asked (sort of).
If you make the following assumptions:
Likelihood of Corbyn being elected 60% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given Corbyn 30% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 35% Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given not Corbyn 70% Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 70%
The answer is yes, out to 3.85.
Of course anyone else's opinion on the above could be radically different.
I'm keeping an eye on the market - which is a lot slower to react than the leadership contest.
Not sure why there is such a different set of probabilities of Jowell being the candidate given Corbyn | Not Corbyn ?
Because a Corbyn voter is more likely to back a candidate who is not the Blairite Jowell. And thus, to a certain extent, we would expect Corbyn and not_Jowell to rise and fall together.
Nick Palmer has argued that the two contests are largely independent.
But here's another view from Buzzfeed: "A shadow cabinet source who backs Jowell said the influx of new Corbyn-supporting members “probably would help” rivals such as Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, and Diane Abbott. All three MPs signed Jeremy Corbyn’s nomination papers to enable him to stand for the leader of the Labour party."
I think it's true to say new signups who would not have voted otherwise are going to back Corbyn (we know that) and probably not Jowell.
I see the logic, I just don't see much evidence of it in practice and would probably hedge more to Nick's perspective. I think that for Mayoral candidates competence / electability matters more than positioning in a way in which it doesn't for leading the party. Maybe this is just that I follow a number of people who are Corbyn / Jowell (or actually Corbyn / Wolmar then Jowell)
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
What about the charisma vacuum who played the villain in For Your Eyes Only? Rubbish.
That was poor, but I actually quite like Moore in that film.
Yes. Moore is my favourite Bond. And the Thatcher cameo was entertaining too.
No, no and thrice no. Moore was generally awful. TSWLM and FYEO were his only two decent films (out of seven), despite the odd moments elsewhere. He's said he never really believed in the role and it shows. To be fair, some of the scripts were dire but he wasn't the only Bond to suffer from that.
Agree on the Thatcher cameo (not least where she slaps Denis' hand as he nicks a vegetable while she's on the phone). That said, the best closing comedy moment is in TWINE with its double world-class Christmas-Turkey puns (even if it did miss reference to a good stuffing).
The Child Catcher - Robert Helpmann was a dancer by training, which just added that extra level of impish slight stature malevolence as he sprang around the scenes.
For me: Goldfinger A View to a Kill (wonderfully played by Christopher Walken) And the guy in Skyfall
Worst? Probably the silly "General" in Licence to Kill.
EDIT: not, Licence to Kill - that actually had quite a good villain. I'm thinking of the Living Daylights.
Zorin in AVTAK wins hands down for me. Walken was simply superb. I also love Le Chiffre in Casino Royale. Honorable mentions to Christopher Lee in TMWTGG (a generally weak film) Drax in Moonraker, and Sanchez in LTK.
I also like Louis Jordan in Octopussy. Sean Bean in Goldeneye is also underrated. Jonathan Pryce didn't quite pull it off for me in TND and Robert Carlyle put in a good performance in TWINE but with a weak script that didn't allow him to show the full extent of his talents.
The Diamonds are Forever Blofeld was probably a low point for me. Toby Stephens was far too good for the truly awful Die Another Day.
I'm afraid I disagree on Walken as Zorin. I thought his part was poorly written as he's an excellent actor and should have had more to work with. Lee was very good but the film, as you say, was probably the low point of the entire series. Drax I did find credible but the plot was ludicrous (which is a shame as the book is probably the best that Fleming wrote and could have been more-or-less adapted at the time).
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Oddjob was a great baddie. Goldfinger is my favorite. It's the movie where they perfected the formula. It's also the shortest.
Which was written by Ian Fleming and arguably includes his best villain.
Sadiq Khan was given a boost today when his bid to become London Mayor was backed by former top prosecutor Sir Keir Starmer.
Mr Khan was hailed as a “dynamic human rights lawyer” by former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir, now MP for Holborn & St Pancras and a rising Labour party star.
“Sadiq made his name rooting out injustice and righting wrongs,” he said. “He was never afraid to take on powerful vested interests in the government, the police or the prison service. This is precisely what we need in a mayor.”
There's a very strong case to be made for tax credits to be used exactly for young people.
Rather than support an entire generation on those on low pay, where they start simply to subside employers en masse, they should be focussed on those cases where the socially optimal employment of a particular group is higher than the market would otherwise achieve.
That's going to be new entrants to the market (as per the rules of the NMW), the long term unemployed and those returning to the workforce after a significant time out of it, for example parents.
Cutting tax credits from 18-22 year olds is going to be immensely counterproductive.
Why is the answer always to penalise those out of work?
It's not even the only way to incentivise them.
And that's assuming you think the individuals concerned are the ones who need incentivising, rather than employers.
We're getting far too close to turning the endless blaming of "the youth of today" into government policy.
As a corollary of my "no benefits without NI", I'm very happy to subsidise people to work at the low end. But the point is that there are too many people who don't work, and who are either unemployable, or choose not to work.
Work is good for you in so many ways. If you work you are less likely to get sick or be depressed. The enforced routine means that you are less likely to develop substance addictions. We need to make sure that our education, and our tax and benefits system encourage work. Today they do not.
Absolutely. Tie it in with re-establishment of vocational courses 14-18 and grammar schools, and we may actually progress as a society....
Not grammar schools please. Like capital punishment, conscription and a BBC that only broadcasts truth as news, grammar schools belong to a past era that has gone and isn't coming back. What is more there will never be any sensible debate about actually implementing an education system fit for the 21st century all the time some group or another tries to put grammar schools onto the agenda.
Pretty much my view. It's looking at a solution rather than the problems.
Donald Trump always makes a big thing out of not needing money as he is very rich.
I just went to his web site - and there is a donate button!
Not needing and not accepting being two different things!
I'm struggling to read Trump. I'd like to see some three-way polls with him running as an independent, which I'd regard as the most likely way he'll end up on the ballot.
Comments
Has Russell Brand backed Corbyn?
Adolfo Celi as Emilio Largo in Thunderball.
Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe: SPECTRE agent in Thunderball
Jonathan Pryce is one of my favourite actors, and the idea of him as some crazed media mogul was a good one. But the movie just didn't work, which was a real shame.
And Toby Stephens sneer was simply awesome in Die Another Day.
*riffles through DVDs*
Why are we waiting?
McClory then spent the best part of the next 40 years trying to remake the film mutiple times, with multiple lawsuits along the way.
But I do really want it to happen.
EDIT @Scrapheap_as_was SNAP!
to those grubby little books
and all I seek is a killing job
and a sex scene so sublime.
Anyway, I support this change.
The YouGov poll for The Times of 1,400 eligible voters put Mr Corbyn on 53%, 32 points ahead of Andy Burnham. - The left-wing MP said his campaign was "going very well" but ballot papers had not yet been sent out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33860521
Good move – keeps the Corbynytes motivated and wards off complacency.
Gert Frobe as Goldfinger was, on the other hand, genuinely chilling. "No, Mr Bond; I expect you to die" is not just a great throwaway line in its own right (one of the few given to a villain), but is entirely believable. Even though the film has weaknesses (the plot device about the toxic spray being switched), it's one one of the best.
Lotte Lenya as Rosa Klebb in FRWL.
Film also had great backdrop of Istanbul, the Cold War and Daniela Bianchi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniela_Bianchi
Corbyn is the only one trying, while the other three sit around not saying all that much, just wringing their hands. Reluctantly I say Corbyn deserves to win.
I say that half-jokingly - I would not be surprised if that is part of their thinking.
Someone mentioned Jonathon Pryce being a weak Bond baddie - I quite agree, he'll always be Sam in Brazil for me.
Interestingly, the plots of AVTAK and Goldfinger have strong similarities. My favourite scene with Frobe is the golf match with Connery - brilliant stuff.
The Kentucky/Fort Knox stuff pales in comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUH3B1lPvYM
Always makes me think of Gladiators, because her stunt woman was Eunice Someoneorother, who absolutely crushed her competitors (and the female Gladiators too, come to think of it).
"The key to restoring productivity growth is to shift job creation towards higher productivity sectors, while encouraging firms to invest more to boost the productivity of their existing workforces."
http://www.cityam.com/222062/what-george-osborne-needs-do-get-britain-s-productivity-engine-started-again?utm_medium=Email&utm_source=Email&utm_campaign=150811_CMU
Incidentally, she ended up involved in the phone hacking stuff, as she was a stunt double for pretty much every brunette actress in 2000s action films.
I'm not surprised. She was immensely fit/strong. It was quite amusing to watch her be better than most of the female Gladiators. (Gladiatrices, I suppose).
Problem solved.
The point TC makes is a good one though. Forget the EU for a second, and think about how we get young people into a culture of work. The best way is for them to actually work. Someone who's 27 and has never worked is probably never going to work. You need to get people into the culture of work as soon as possible. And the best way to do that is to require a history of NI payments before benefits are payable.
This would also act as an incentive to young people aged 15, 16 or 17 to work hard at school. If you know there are no government handouts until you've worked, then being qualified to work matters more. And parents - realising they (and not the state) will be subsidising none working young adults are much more likely to give their kids a kick up the arse.
Dustin Hoffman said it best. There are many good drama series on TV today, but the movies are terrible - all remakes, sequels, or comic book heroes.
If you make the following assumptions:
Likelihood of Corbyn being elected 60%
Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given Corbyn 30%
Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 35%
Likelihood of Jowell being candidate given not Corbyn 70%
Likelihood Jowell wins in this combination 70%
The answer is yes, out to 3.85.
Of course anyone else's opinion on the above could be radically different.
I'm keeping an eye on the market - which is a lot slower to react than the leadership contest.
I suspect some of the voters that have migrated left to the Greens and other minor left wing outfits will happily return.
What impact will this have on the LibDems - they seem to have taken a bit of a leftist route also - would Norman Lamb had been in a better position to hoover up some more centrist voters.
One of the best hopes for Labour under Corbyn is surely Scotland, however I can't help but think that SLAB remains a busted flush. I actually see the Tories being beneficiaries in border regions as the SNP might try to out-Corbyn Corbyn.
Not sure how Wales goes - Lib Dems might pick up here - not really much sign of a nationalist upsurge.
England is where Labour could struggle most. They will probably strengthen in the North East and there will be pockets of resistance elsewhere, however hanging on to everything else will be a challenge.
Overall if Corbyn leads into 2020 GE, I suspect 170 seats would be a good result for Labour.
About 67 per cent of trade union affiliates support Mr Corbyn, compared with 55 per cent of registered supporters who paid £3 to vote, and 49 per cent of full Labour members.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33858433
I do wonder how the Chinese economy will end up going in the short term, and the impact that might have on foreign policy (particularly the islands to the east, also claimed by Japan/Taiwan, and the southern seas).
Both fooked long term
Therefore, a Corbyn-led Labour party might spark at least a partial revival - however, the irony is that to do so he would have to bulldoze what's left of SLAB and run it as a branch office from London, as hardly any of the surviving Labour leadership in Scotland support his views.
Of course, the fact is that the SNP are not particularly left-wing in practice (if they are left wing at all). But as long as they are not seen as part of some 'Establishment stitch up', that's probably good enough for the left wing vote in Scotland against a centrist Labour party.
(That was also in partial response to @SouthamObserver upthread.)
Trump 19%
Walker 12%
Carson 12%
Bush 11%
Fiorina 10%
Cruz 9%
Huckabee and Rubio 6%
all the rest 3% or lower.
MOE 3.9%
Nick Palmer has argued that the two contests are largely independent.
But here's another view from Buzzfeed:
"A shadow cabinet source who backs Jowell said the influx of new Corbyn-supporting members “probably would help” rivals such as Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, and Diane Abbott. All three MPs signed Jeremy Corbyn’s nomination papers to enable him to stand for the leader of the Labour party."
I think it's true to say new signups who would not have voted otherwise are going to back Corbyn (we know that) and probably not Jowell.
But it does have a painful transition ahead of it. If you think of an economy having three outlets for economic activity: consumption, investment (also called Gross Capital Formation), and exports. In a normal economy, consumption is probably 60%, investment 20%, and exports+savings 20%.
In China, Gross Capital Formation is close to 50% of GDP. That is the dominant part of the Chinese economy, not exports. (And it's why people like @SeanT come back amazed: just look at the things the Chinese are building!)
Because the tenth investment dollar tends to earn a lower return than the first, high levels of Gross Capital Formation usually end in nasty recessions. South Korea, for example, during its mega growth period had two recessions where - each time - 25% was knocked off GDP. Spain, as an aside, had a Gross Capital Formation boom (all those apartments and golf villas in Andalucia) in the run up to the Eurozone crisis.
Essentially, China needs to rebalance its economy between consumption and investment, with the former rising, and the latter falling. And it will do that. But the transition will likely be extremely painful - for a year or two at least.
'Looks as though Diane Abbott is a dead cert for Home Secretary…
I thought shadow chancellor was earmarked for her ?
How long before she starts stabbing Corbyn in the back on This Week ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKytiGyHBCk
It's not even the only way to incentivise them.
And that's assuming you think the individuals concerned are the ones who need incentivising, rather than employers.
We're getting far too close to turning the endless blaming of "the youth of today" into government policy.
I just went to his web site - and there is a donate button!
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/thunderball-final.pdf
They were particularly upset that Bond banged the deadly Fiona only for "King and Country"...
In the end, I think only the mink glove was removed. LOL!
Agree on the Thatcher cameo (not least where she slaps Denis' hand as he nicks a vegetable while she's on the phone). That said, the best closing comedy moment is in TWINE with its double world-class Christmas-Turkey puns (even if it did miss reference to a good stuffing).
Sadiq Khan was given a boost today when his bid to become London Mayor was backed by former top prosecutor Sir Keir Starmer.
Mr Khan was hailed as a “dynamic human rights lawyer” by former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir, now MP for Holborn & St Pancras and a rising Labour party star.
“Sadiq made his name rooting out injustice and righting wrongs,” he said. “He was never afraid to take on powerful vested interests in the government, the police or the prison service. This is precisely what we need in a mayor.”
http://bit.ly/1El87t2
Rather than support an entire generation on those on low pay, where they start simply to subside employers en masse, they should be focussed on those cases where the socially optimal employment of a particular group is higher than the market would otherwise achieve.
That's going to be new entrants to the market (as per the rules of the NMW), the long term unemployed and those returning to the workforce after a significant time out of it, for example parents.
Cutting tax credits from 18-22 year olds is going to be immensely counterproductive.
Work is good for you in so many ways. If you work you are less likely to get sick or be depressed. The enforced routine means that you are less likely to develop substance addictions. We need to make sure that our education, and our tax and benefits system encourage work. Today they do not.
BTW, are you getting ready for a Scarab SRV?
I'm struggling to read Trump. I'd like to see some three-way polls with him running as an independent, which I'd regard as the most likely way he'll end up on the ballot.