According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
16 year olds are stupid. Probably not a good argument to use, but it feels true (for info, I didn't think I should have the vote at 16 when I was 16).
I also think this call for 16 year olds voting is bizarre as we seem to infantilize young people more and more.
However, the door was opened with the IndyRef. If they could vote in that, I see no reason they cannot vote in everything.
I was opposed to 16 and 17 year olds having the vote but then I saw the indyref, and some of the most mature and elegant campaigners in the indyref were 16 and 17 year olds.
They shamed some of their elders
You can campaign at any age, only adults get a vote though, quite appropriately. If you're going to allow children the vote then why draw the line at 16, why not 15?
I delivered leaflets for my father when I was 8. It doesn't mean I should have got the vote.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
How about "because they're children".
Can't sign up for a credit card, can't sign a contract without parental consent, can't vote. Entirely consistent and sensible to set the age of voting as being the age of maturity.
Can get married, have children, and die for their country...
Used to be able to smoke too.
I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to have a "single age of adulthood". (And we can then discuss what it should be.) It seems bizarre to have several different ones.
"Used to" shows we're moving in the opposite direction. The age of allowing smoking was raised to 18 because amongst other issues the science is that children's brains aren't developed yet. This isn't just posturing, the prefrontal cortex of teenagers isn't developed yet.
Furthermore you are wrong actually on getting married etc. You can only get married if you are under 18 with Parental Consent.
You are wrong on joining the military too. You can only join the military if you are under 18 with Parental Consent. Furthermore you still can't be put on the frontline until 18.
Are you proposing that 16 year olds should get the vote if they get Parental Consent to vote for the party they want to vote for?
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
How about "because they're children".
Can't sign up for a credit card, can't sign a contract without parental consent, can't vote. Entirely consistent and sensible to set the age of voting as being the age of maturity.
Can get married, have children, and die for their country...
Used to be able to smoke too.
I wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to have a "single age of adulthood". (And we can then discuss what it should be.) It seems bizarre to have several different ones.
Actually Robert strictly they can't die for their country except by accident. No one under 18 is allowed to serve in a combat zone.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
And giving kids the vote will need a lot more justification than "it will help my party". An argument for giving 16 year olds the vote is that they can pay income tax. But if that is the criteria we should only give the vote to people who have paid a certain amount of income tax in the period prior to the election. I think 18 seems about right - perhaps we should have a referendum on whether to change it?
At the very least, any move to include 16 year olds in the franchise should be done after a long national conversation and extensive parliamentary debate and be brought in for the general election after next. It certainly should not be rushed in due to the childish politicking of unelected Lords from parties that lost the last election, in order to gain advantage in one particular plebiscite. It would be a reckless vandalism of our constitution to do it in such a backhanded and rushed manner.
It would be gerrymandering to lower the voting age to 16 in this referendum just to increase the pro-EU vote.
16 year old voting is one of those areas I dislike, but don't feel can be held back given what has already been permitted unfortunately. My arguments against it can simply be rebutted with 'Well, it was already allowed, so that's not a concern', so they're not worth making, as the status quo is already half toward it already.
The notion that there aren't atty nod to Ofcom or anyone else
e speech.
If we didn'tok?
I simg it.
The logict anyway on social media etc so it makehy?
It's a questiosewhere is relevant, because a free speech argument falls flat.
We are not s.
Maybtsoever.
I'll admit writing on the fly with half formed thoughts is not always the best for clear arguments, but surely it is about different burdens being placed on different situations - demanding something be taken away requires a higher level of argument than demanding something be added.
The status quo has been legally defended as acceptable. Therefore to change it one needs to make a very good case as to why changing it would benefit us. But if the status quo were that it was permitted, as you postulated, then I accept 'it happens elsewhere' would not be enough to justify taking it away. But your scenario is not the one we have, and lacking the free speech argument, 'I prefer attack ads', is not much of a case on its own. If a majority voted for it I'd argue but accept it though.
Thanks. That's a lot clearer.
Phew - you had me sweating there. Not used to having to give greater clarity to defend my PB ramblings!
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
Unsurprising, given young drivers make so many bad decisions that end up with accidents. As a society, we are very clearly moving towards 18 as the age of adulthood across all areas. These have been moves supported by the left. They only take the opposite view on voting as a partisan approach to help the left. It would be foolhardy for pro-EU membership Tories to give way on them for one referendum for similar political reasons, and would come back to haunt the party.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
On that basis a 10 year old pays tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they get a vote?
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
That referred to geographies not individuals. The legal age for doing part time work is 13, I believe. Are you suggesting we lower the voting age to that?
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
The old saying was never meant on an individual level.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
What a stupid and fatuous answer. I assume from that you have no logical response to the point.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Our PEBs are dull, I suppose. I only recall two recent ones, I think. There was that awful Freeman one for Labour ("I vote Labour because I was raised to be decent. You want to be decent too, don't you?"), and another one even vaguer with a clock, I think, being smashed, which I think was a Tory one about not ruining a good thing or something.
Oh, and the Green party musical number one, which was definitely not boring. I loved that one. "It's sweeter, when we all agree, a party political harmony".
Best party political broadcast ever has to be this one:
"The most fundamental need today in the field of government is to create integration in collective consciousness and dissolve the high levels of stress in society"
Ok, odd start, but I'm listening...what the...transcendental meditation?...is that man doing gymnastic yoga?...well, maybe it's not too craz...what's that..."only the natural law party can strengthen the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and at the same time create a real union of the european nations"? Nutters
No one today is offering a proper policy platform based around yogic flying.
Hey: maybe that's the niche for the LibDems.
Is that bouncing all they mean by Yogic Flying? I'm disappointed.
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
And giving kids the vote will need a lot more justification than "it will help my party". An argument for giving 16 year olds the vote is that they can pay income tax. But if that is the criteria we should only give the vote to people who have paid a certain amount of income tax in the period prior to the election. I think 18 seems about right - perhaps we should have a referendum on whether to change it?
At the very least, any move to include 16 year olds in the franchise should be done after a long national conversation and extensive parliamentary debate and be brought in for the general election after next. It certainly should not be rushed in due to the childish politicking of unelected Lords from parties that lost the last election, in order to gain advantage in one particular plebiscite. It would be a reckless vandalism of our constitution to do it in such a backhanded and rushed manner.
It would be gerrymandering to lower the voting age to 16 in this referendum just to increase the pro-EU vote.
Which is probably why (pro-EU) senior government ministers are suggesting the Cameroons might soften their approach on it. It would be an appalling for the Prime Minister to participate in such a gerrymander. The whole party should fight him on it. As I said, I would be likely to resign my party membership over it. It seems others feel equally strongly about it, which just reinforces the reason why such a change should only be done after extensive parliamentary debate, and a motion separate to the EU referendum.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
Perhaps anyone under 11,500 grand PA doesn't get the vote either?
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
That sounds a little odd.
Do you have any evidence that there are any 16/17 olds in the armed forces who are married?
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
A child is allowed to work at most 12 hours a week during term time, which is 39 weeks a year. That's 468 hours. Add in a 48 hour week for the remaining 13 weeks (624 hours), and you get a total of 1092 hours. They would have to be earning 9.71 an hour to be earning above the personal allowance of 10.6k a year. That's substantially higher than the average part time wage for adults.
I can't see many children earning that unless they are put in a cushy job by a rich parent, so certainly not those working flat out as described on the hours side. I suspect exactly zero children earn that much money. So it seems that no 16 year olds will be paying income tax anyway.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
That sounds a little odd.
Do you have any evidence that there are any 16/17 olds in the armed forces who are married?
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
Have you seen Starship Troopers? Maybe national service should be brought back and only those who complete it should be allowed to vote.
David Cameron will issue a dramatic warning to fellow EU leaders this week that he may have to recommend a UK exit from the European Union if they reject his demands for reform.
Turning up the pressure on the other 27 EU heads of state, the prime minister will formally table his list of demands – including a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work benefits after entering the UK – in a letter to European Council president Donald Tusk on Tuesday. It will mark the start of months of detailed negotiations involving senior representatives of all EU governments, ahead of the promised in/out referendum on UK membership before the end of 2017.
Cameron is doing this for the domestic audience. The EU bureacrats and leaders know Cameron's position.
Serious UK only reform is not possible. We will be offered associate membership whilst the Eurozone integrates further.
That sounds like serious reform if it happens. I'm curious what you define then as reform if not being involved with further integration is not part of it.
It will depend on what associate membership is. It will not be serious reform if it is just relabelling our current relationship plus making a few minor changes. I will be interested to see how we will avoid ever closer union when the ECJ engage in judicial activism.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
Do you think their numbers reach three figures?
You have to stay in full time education until you are 18 now anyway.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
You might want to think about where the logic of linking the franchise to paying of income tax will take you.
@ShippersUnbound: New human rights law: judges will be told they will not have to follow rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
@ShippersUnbound: British bill of rights will contain explicit statement backing “freedom of expression” for the press.
@ShippersUnbound: Human rights laws would in future apply only in Britain, so they can't be used to sue soldiers for their actions “on the battlefield”
@ShippersUnbound: New bill of rights will be "a reference for individual rights" rather than a body of law “whose main aim is as a route to compensation”.
David Cameron will issue a dramatic warning to fellow EU leaders this week that he may have to recommend a UK exit from the European Union if they reject his demands for reform.
Turning up the pressure on the other 27 EU heads of state, the prime minister will formally table his list of demands – including a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work benefits after entering the UK – in a letter to European Council president Donald Tusk on Tuesday. It will mark the start of months of detailed negotiations involving senior representatives of all EU governments, ahead of the promised in/out referendum on UK membership before the end of 2017.
Cameron is doing this for the domestic audience. The EU bureacrats and leaders know Cameron's position.
Serious UK only reform is not possible. We will be offered associate membership whilst the Eurozone integrates further.
That sounds like serious reform if it happens. I'm curious what you define then as reform if not being involved with further integration is not part of it.
It will depend on what associate membership is. It will not be serious reform if it is just relabelling our current relationship plus making a few minor changes. I will be interested to see how we will avoid ever closer union when the ECJ engage in judicial activism.
Further integration will stay happen though new EU laws, which we are likely to get outvoted on from on a fairly regular basis. I can accept that, but what I need to know is that non-Euro states can stop the Eurozone bloc vote, because otherwise we are at the Eurozone's mercy for how much integration we face - and how our cash gets spent.
David Cameron will issue a dramatic warning to fellow EU leaders this week that he may have to recommend a UK exit from the European Union if they reject his demands for reform.
Turning up the pressure on the other 27 EU heads of state, the prime minister will formally table his list of demands – including a four-year ban on EU migrants claiming in-work benefits after entering the UK – in a letter to European Council president Donald Tusk on Tuesday. It will mark the start of months of detailed negotiations involving senior representatives of all EU governments, ahead of the promised in/out referendum on UK membership before the end of 2017.
Cameron is doing this for the domestic audience. The EU bureacrats and leaders know Cameron's position.
Serious UK only reform is not possible. We will be offered associate membership whilst the Eurozone integrates further.
That sounds like serious reform if it happens. I'm curious what you define then as reform if not being involved with further integration is not part of it.
It will depend on what associate membership is. It will not be serious reform if it is just relabelling our current relationship plus making a few minor changes. I will be interested to see how we will avoid ever closer union when the ECJ engage in judicial activism.
Further integration will stay happen though new EU laws, which we are likely to get outvoted on from on a fairly regular basis. I can accept that, but what I need to know is that non-Euro states can stop the Eurozone bloc vote, because otherwise we are at the Eurozone's mercy for how much integration we face - and how our cash gets spent.
That is the key issue, far more important than current competences. It is how the rules of tomorrow will be determined.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
And giving kids the vote will need a lot more justification than "it will help my party". An argument for giving 16 year olds the vote is that they can pay income tax. But if that is the criteria we should only give the vote to people who have paid a certain amount of income tax in the period prior to the election. I think 18 seems about right - perhaps we should have a referendum on whether to change it?
At the very least, any move to include 16 year olds in the franchise should be done after a long national conversation and extensive parliamentary debate and be brought in for the general election after next. It certainly should not be rushed in due to the childish politicking of unelected Lords from parties that lost the last election, in order to gain advantage in one particular plebiscite. It would be a reckless vandalism of our constitution to do it in such a backhanded and rushed manner.
It would be gerrymandering to lower the voting age to 16 in this referendum just to increase the pro-EU vote.
I agree the change should not be rushed in for a particular vote.
However, I do think it would be useful for children to be able to vote at 16 for the purpose of engaging them in the democratic process. Especially for those who come from never-voting households, it would be useful for this to be part of Civic Education at school.
Teachers might have undue influence? But how many 16 & 17 year olds are there in any particular constituency? And given that part of the studies would have to be about the 'secret ballot' and 'making up your own mind', wouldn't it be worth while?
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
Do you think their numbers reach three figures?
Why not votes at 16?
Because 18 is the age of majority.
Correct - at the age of majority you are responsible for your actions. Are we to give freedom to drink and smoke at 16 to go with some daft notion of voting? Should we lower the driving age to 16?
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
They are Militant 2 and Mandelson and co will have to flush them out again before Labour can even be considered a credible party of government
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
People are not being denied the vote. Everyone to all intents and purposes 18 and over has the vote irrespective of race creed or intelligence. Its called universal suffrage. Children, for sensible and sound reasons which seem to have passed you by, do not qualify.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
And giving kids the vote will need a lot more justification than "it will help my party". An argument for giving 16 year olds the vote is that they can pay income tax. But if that is the criteria we should only give the vote to people who have paid a certain amount of income tax in the period prior to the election. I think 18 seems about right - perhaps we should have a referendum on whether to change it?
At the very least, any move to include 16 year olds in the franchise should be done after a long national conversation and extensive parliamentary debate and be brought in for the general election after next. It certainly should not be rushed in due to the childish politicking of unelected Lords from parties that lost the last election, in order to gain advantage in one particular plebiscite. It would be a reckless vandalism of our constitution to do it in such a backhanded and rushed manner.
It would be gerrymandering to lower the voting age to 16 in this referendum just to increase the pro-EU vote.
I agree the change should not be rushed in for a particular vote.
However, I do think it would be useful for children to be able to vote at 16 for the purpose of engaging them in the democratic process. Especially for those who come from never-voting households, it would be useful for this to be part of Civic Education at school.
Teachers might have undue influence? But how many 16 & 17 year olds are there in any particular constituency? And given that part of the studies would have to be about the 'secret ballot' and 'making up your own mind', wouldn't it be worth while?
I would imagine it would be about 3% of the electorate in each constituency, and more in some with younger populations. That's enough to swing the vote. You can certainly teach them about the process in preparation for them voting at 18. 3/5ths of each yearly cohort would not have general elections falling in the time they were in that bracket anyway.
It will not be serious reform if it is just relabelling our current relationship plus making a few minor changes
Aha I see the planned 'Associate Membership' scam has penetrated these pages. But I am afraid you have described it pretty well. It is indeed intended to be a relabelling of of the status quo, which of course means more integration over time. It will be described as achieving the old 'in Europe, not run by Europe' goal but will be nothing of the sort.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
I think you have the argument the wrong way round. It isnt up to the opponents of this to justify the status quo, but for its advocates to explain why what we currently have is wrong. Be in no doubt though, that those pushing for this do so because they believe that young people will be disproportionately in favour of their beliefs.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw somebody tweet that at their local cinema there were 32 showing in a single day due to demand. They obviously hadn't read the SeanT review on PB.com
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
Have you seen Starship Troopers? Maybe national service should be brought back and only those who complete it should be allowed to vote.
"And that was a PPB by the MP for Klendathu South"
@ShippersUnbound: New human rights law: judges will be told they will not have to follow rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
@ShippersUnbound: British bill of rights will contain explicit statement backing “freedom of expression” for the press.
@ShippersUnbound: Human rights laws would in future apply only in Britain, so they can't be used to sue soldiers for their actions “on the battlefield”
@ShippersUnbound: New bill of rights will be "a reference for individual rights" rather than a body of law “whose main aim is as a route to compensation”.
We do need a restatement of where the line is for freedom of speech. We have seen some appalling cases of police intimidation and investigation, and subsequent prosecutions for things said on twitter that others dont like.
There always has to be a line, but we need to be clear where that line is. Incitement to violence, threats of (and the likely carrying out of) violence, and some caveats about course of conduct and harassment.
There is a twitter troll who repeatedly winds up as many people on merseyside as he can. He has received many a visit and a phone call from Merseyside police. He even once got a phone call about a 'retweet' of somebody else's tweet. Yes a sodding retweet.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
The old saying was never meant on an individual level.
Correct and its absurd to try to use that slogan as a justification to give children the vote. It was used by American colonies complaining about being taxed and governed from overseas but without any representatives in parliament.
An amazing load of rubbish is being spouted attempting to justify giving children the vote.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw somebody tweet that at their local cinema there were 32 showing in a single day due to demand. They obviously hadn't read the SeanT review on PB.com
Obviously been reading TSE's ravings about it instead!
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
They are Militant 2 and Mandelson and co will have to flush them out again before Labour can even be considered a credible party of government
Too late for that I'm afraid. Being a credible party of government isn't anywhere in their reckoning. These people can afford to wait.
The PLP are the architects of their own demise. The safeguards were in place and they themselves decided to circumvent those safeguards.
I think the left wing are right: the Blairite legacy is not one of principles to be put into practice by government, but one of technique for getting elected. When the 'moderate' leadership candidates were trying to express reasons why people should vote for them, it was just waffle because they had nothing, really, to say.
The only reason Mr Corbyn stood for election as leader was that it was his turn. It was nothing to do with his possible credentials for leadership.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the next person to stand for the leadership to represent Mr Corbyn's wing of the party will be someone of greater leadership potential.
The real question is, whether the electorate of this country will ever be ready to try the approach offered by Mr Corbyn & his followers.
Unless some other party comes to prominence before the Conservatives run out of steam/the economy tanks/the migrant crisis swamps the whole of Europe/any other event that tips the balance, then a hard-left Labour party led by someone with charisma could look attractive.
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
Do you think their numbers reach three figures?
Why not votes at 16?
Because 18 is the age of majority.
Correct - at the age of majority you are responsible for your actions. Are we to give freedom to drink and smoke Should we lower the driving age to 16?
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success, Skyfall was the fourth highest grossing film of 2012 in the US and Canada and while I don't expect Spectre to do quite as well I would expect it to still make good revenues overall
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
They are Militant 2 and Mandelson and co will have to flush them out again before Labour can even be considered a credible party of government
Too late for that I'm afraid. Being a credible party of government isn't anywhere in their reckoning. These people can afford to wait.
The PLP are the architects of their own demise. The safeguards were in place and they themselves decided to circumvent those safeguards.
I think the left wing are right: the Blairite legacy is not one of principles to be put into practice by government, but one of technique for getting elected. When the 'moderate' leadership candidates were trying to express reasons why people should vote for them, it was just waffle because they had nothing, really, to say.
The only reason Mr Corbyn stood for election as leader was that it was his turn. It was nothing to do with his possible credentials for leadership.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the next person to stand for the leadership to represent Mr Corbyn's wing of the party will be someone of greater leadership potential.
The real question is, whether the electorate of this country will ever be ready to try the approach offered by Mr Corbyn & his followers.
Unless some other party comes to prominence before the Conservatives run out of steam/the economy tanks/the migrant crisis swamps the whole of Europe/any other event that tips the balance, then a hard-left Labour party led by someone with charisma could look attractive.
I highly doubt it, short of a depression and John McDonnell does not offer much either. A migrant crisis is more likely to boost UKIP than Labour. I am still of the view that Chuka Umunna will be Labour's next PM in 2025, but the militants need to be defeated first, both in the party and by the electorate
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
It'll do boffo box office (as Variety would say). The reason I go to Friday morning screenings is that nobody else does. It's much better not having to cope with the plebs.
Going back to first principles is fine. We don't need any more invisible cars.
Bond is about action, girls, and exotic locations, plus a pace that drags you along fast enough to ignore any plot inconsistencies. Casino Royale and Skyfall were great. Spectre simply isn't.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
The set pieces are great, as Bonds always are, but the pace really sagged between. They spent 18 nights filming that car chase, and it was great, but the pace of the whole movie simply wasn't there. Watch a Peter Hunt edited Bond and it is self-evident.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
It'll do boffo box office (as Variety would say). The reason I go to Friday morning screenings is that nobody else does. It's much better not having to cope with the plebs.
Going back to first principles is fine. We don't need any more invisible cars.
Bond is about action, girls, and exotic locations, plus a pace that drags you along fast enough to ignore any plot inconsistencies. Casino Royale and Skyfall were great. Spectre simply isn't.
I don't know, on the whole Casino Royale and Skyfall were better but there were elements of Spectre I preferred, including the opening scene in Mexico City and the scenes in Rome and it was certainly a lot better than Quantum of Solace or Die Another Day for me. Bond will always be variations on a theme, it is just which elements of the theme are included in which film
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
According to the Telegraph, 39% of 'young people' (I think that means 16-18 year olds) would vote Labour and 19% would vote Green, compared to just 22% for the Conservatives:
Letting children vote just gives a big boost to Corbynism and a big kick to the Conservative party, as it would inevitably follow in a general election. Cameron would be shooting the party in the foot if he gave way on this.
Denying people the vote will need stronger justification than "it damages my party"
No-one is being denied a vote they currently have. What is happening here is that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are trying to give the vote to children because it helps their parties. And Cameron is considering 'accepting' it because it will help the side he supports in the EU referendum. It's incredibly short termist thinking.
We don't allow 16 year olds to go to war, we don't allow them to buy cigarettes, we don't allow them to buy alcohol, we don't even allow them to leave school. And, unsurprisingly, schoolchildren that have never lived in the real world vote for fantasy economics. They can have a vote when they finish their education and become adults.
There's an old saying "no taxation without representation" - is that not what we have now?
10 year olds pay VAT when they buy sweets with their pocket money.
Yawn...did you buy yours today?
How many 16/17 year olds are earning more than 10k a year? I really don't think the tax argument is that strong. And you could argue that there should be no representation without taxation.
Starting salary for a 16/17 new entrant soldier is around £14,000...if he's married then he'd have a "full house". Married, a soldier and paying tax - but still no vote
He'd have had to have got permission to both marry, and be in the army at that age. Hardly an adult.
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
When they made You Only Live Twice, the Daily Express had a headline "It had to be this man" over Donald Pleasance playing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He was a genuine villain.
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
The intention is always to leave room for a later reappearance
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
It's sheer idiot's delight. Hang on and enjoy the ride. If you can't do that (and for some of the Roger Moore ones it's tough) I don't know what to tell you.
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
They are Militant 2 and Mandelson and co will have to flush them out again before Labour can even be considered a credible party of government
(snipped)
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the next person to stand for the leadership to represent Mr Corbyn's wing of the party will be someone of greater leadership potential.
The real question is, whether the electorate of this country will ever be ready to try the approach offered by Mr Corbyn & his followers.
Unless some other party comes to prominence before the Conservatives run out of steam/the economy tanks/the migrant crisis swamps the whole of Europe/any other event that tips the balance, then a hard-left Labour party led by someone with charisma could look attractive.
I highly doubt it, short of a depression and John McDonnell does not offer much either. A migrant crisis is more likely to boost UKIP than Labour. I am still of the view that Chuka Umunna will be Labour's next PM in 2025, but the militants need to be defeated first, both in the party and by the electorate
I hope you are right. However, I expect to see some new faces in the PLP after GE 2020 and some of those may make rapid progress through the ranks.
Good night, all - and since I don't usually post enough even to be saying goodnight, may I add: thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions you have regularly.
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
They are Militant 2 and Mandelson and co will have to flush them out again before Labour can even be considered a credible party of government
(snipped)
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the next person to stand for the leadership to represent Mr Corbyn's wing of the party will be someone of greater leadership potential.
The real question is, whether the electorate of this country will ever be ready to try the approach offered by Mr Corbyn & his followers.
Unless some other party comes to prominence before the Conservatives run out of steam/the economy tanks/the migrant crisis swamps the whole of Europe/any other event that tips the balance, then a hard-left Labour party led by someone with charisma could look attractive.
I highly doubt it, short of a depression and John McDonnell does not offer much either. A migrant crisis is more likely to boost UKIP than Labour. I am still of the view that Chuka Umunna will be Labour's next PM in 2025, but the militants need to be defeated first, both in the party and by the electorate
I hope you are right. However, I expect to see some new faces in the PLP after GE 2020 and some of those may make rapid progress through the ranks.
Good night, all - and since I don't usually post enough even to be saying goodnight, may I add: thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions you have regularly.
High praise, and we haven't even had the fabled AV thread from TSE yet!
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
The movies are made by MGM and Columbia (Sony) so hardly 'British'. Great for Pinewood (which is building a very large movie studio in suburban Atlanta) and British technical crews.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
When they made You Only Live Twice, the Daily Express had a headline "It had to be this man" over Donald Pleasance playing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He was a genuine villain.
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christopher Waltz I believe, yes could to see the opening shot too
Key organisers in Momentum, the new Jeremy Corbyn supporters’ group inside the Labour Party, are explicitly plotting “civil war” to get rid of moderate Labour MPs, despite repeated denials, a Telegraph investigation has found.
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
Surely there is no surprise in any of this. Even if it was not being reported we could be sure it was going on. The Labour Party is being taken over and Momentum is a party within a party.
They are Militant 2 and Mandelson and co will have to flush them out again before Labour can even be considered a credible party of government
(snipped)
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the next person to stand for the leadership to represent Mr Corbyn's wing of the party will be someone of greater leadership potential.
The real question is, whether the electorate of this country will ever be ready to try the approach offered by Mr Corbyn & his followers.
Unless some other party comes to prominence before the Conservatives run out of steam/the economy tanks/the migrant crisis swamps the whole of Europe/any other event that tips the balance, then a hard-left Labour party led by someone with charisma could look attractive.
I highly doubt it, short of a depression and John McDonnell does not offer much either. A migrant crisis is more likely to boost UKIP than Labour. I am still of the view that Chuka Umunna will be Labour's next PM in 2025, but the militants need to be defeated first, both in the party and by the electorate
I hope you are right. However, I expect to see some new faces in the PLP after GE 2020 and some of those may make rapid progress through the ranks.
Good night, all - and since I don't usually post enough even to be saying goodnight, may I add: thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions you have regularly.
Maybe, but any new intake in 2020 will not be ready for 2025 and I doubt given present developments it will be that big an intake either. Night
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
The movies are made by MGM and Columbia (Sony) so hardly 'British'. Great for Pinewood (which is building a very large movie studio in suburban Atlanta) and British technical crews.
The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
When they made You Only Live Twice, the Daily Express had a headline "It had to be this man" over Donald Pleasance playing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He was a genuine villain.
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christopher Waltz I believe, yes could to see the opening shot too
I just googled it - it's Christoph.
I have to confess - since seeing Goldfinger (shortest and still the best synthesis of the Bond components) at the age of 13 at Skipton Odeon, when the gun barrel logo appears and you hear those two notes - DA DA - I'm right there. It's like Pavlov's dogs. When you are of a certain age, the James Bond Theme and John Barry's music just does that to you.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
The movies are made by MGM and Columbia (Sony) so hardly 'British'. Great for Pinewood (which is building a very large movie studio in suburban Atlanta) and British technical crews.
Indeed that is so, and Danjaq - a company named for Saltzman and Broccoli's wives - holds the copyrights to the Bond video stuff. But the money comes from MGM and Columbia (Sony).
Good for Eon and whatever they get is great. Anything that helps Pinewood - and they have the 007 sound stage - is good.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
She is a Mexican socialist I believe so not that surprising
The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christopher Waltz I believe, yes could to see the opening shot too
I just googled it - it's Christoph.
I have to confess - since seeing Goldfinger (shortest and still the best synthesis of the Bond components) at the age of 13 at Skipton Odeon, when the gun barrel logo appears and you hear those two notes - DA DA - I'm right there. It's like Pavlov's dogs. When you are of a certain age, the James Bond Theme and John Barry's music just does that to you.
Which is why the franchise will keep going for decades more I expect
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
The movies are made by MGM and Columbia (Sony) so hardly 'British'. Great for Pinewood (which is building a very large movie studio in suburban Atlanta) and British technical crews.
Indeed that is so, and Danjaq - a company named for Saltzman and Broccoli's wives - holds the copyrights to the Bond video stuff. But the money comes from MGM and Columbia (Sony).
Good for Eon and whatever they get is great. Anything that helps Pinewood - and they have the 007 sound stage - is good.
Indeed, Pinewood was also used for the new Star Wars film I believe, as well as the likes of Harry Potter and the Avengers
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
When they made You Only Live Twice, the Daily Express had a headline "It had to be this man" over Donald Pleasance playing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He was a genuine villain.
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christoph Waltz - he was brilliant in Inglourious Basterds.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
She is a Mexican socialist I believe so not that surprising
We gave the Spanish a good thumping a couple of times. As their formal colonial oppeessors, that's gotta count for something.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christopher Waltz I believe, yes could to see the opening shot too
I just googled it - it's Christoph.
I have to confess - since seeing Goldfinger (shortest and still the best synthesis of the Bond components) at the age of 13 at Skipton Odeon, when the gun barrel logo appears and you hear those two notes - DA DA - I'm right there. It's like Pavlov's dogs. When you are of a certain age, the James Bond Theme and John Barry's music just does that to you.
Which is why the franchise will keep going for decades more I expect
I have to confess I hope so. They need to get better plots though.
I have the gun barrel logo music from Goldfinger as my cell phone ring tone. I am officially lame. But every time my phone rings everyone looks up.
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
The movies are made by MGM and Columbia (Sony) so hardly 'British'. Great for Pinewood (which is building a very large movie studio in suburban Atlanta) and British technical crews.
Indeed that is so, and Danjaq - a company named for Saltzman and Broccoli's wives - holds the copyrights to the Bond video stuff. But the money comes from MGM and Columbia (Sony).
Good for Eon and whatever they get is great. Anything that helps Pinewood - and they have the 007 sound stage - is good.
Indeed, Pinewood was also used for the new Star Wars film I believe, as well as the likes of Harry Potter and the Avengers
It was used for the 3 original Star Wars movies too, not to mention Indiana Jones.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
When they made You Only Live Twice, the Daily Express had a headline "It had to be this man" over Donald Pleasance playing Ernst Stavro Blofeld. He was a genuine villain.
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christoph Waltz - he was brilliant in Inglourious Basterds.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
She is a Mexican socialist I believe so not that surprising
We gave the Spanish a good thumping a couple of times. As their formal colonial oppeessors, that's gotta count for something.
For Corbynistas both the Spanish and the Brits were imperialist scum!
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I saw it yesterday morning. I was one of 3 people there. It has all the ingredients but just doesn't seem to work. Craig is a great Bond (and associate producer) but one thing you don't need in a Bond movie is a discussion on "Why do you do this, James?"
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
Maybe, but the whole point of the Craig Bonds was to go back to first principles after the dire World is Not Enough. If, say, an actor like Damian Lewis replaces Craig a less serious Roger More like Bond will re-emerge. I don't think a showing on a Friday morning is really the best judge of its box office success
I went on the first day but in order to get best seats in biggest screen went to the 11pm showing.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Yes they probably could have cut off the end scene, it was a rather poor imitation of Pierce Brosnan's chase down the Thames, they could have effectively ended it at Blofeld's base in Tangiers
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Christopher Waltz I believe, yes could to see the opening shot too
I just googled it - it's Christoph.
I have to confess - since seeing Goldfinger (shortest and still the best synthesis of the Bond components) at the age of 13 at Skipton Odeon, when the gun barrel logo appears and you hear those two notes - DA DA - I'm right there. It's like Pavlov's dogs. When you are of a certain age, the James Bond Theme and John Barry's music just does that to you.
Which is why the franchise will keep going for decades more I expect
I have to confess I hope so. They need to get better plots though.
I have the gun barrel logo music from Goldfinger as my cell phone ring tone. I am officially lame. But every time my phone rings everyone looks up.
Yes, it is certainly distinctive though as has been shown the franchise is able to reinvent itself
I am slightly mystified why the ridiculous Bond character wasn't finished off in Dr No a few decades ago to save us all this banal, boring, derivative, inanely superficial character. How anyone over the age of 5 can quite sit through one of these profoundly dull films from start to finish is quite beyond me.
Have just come back from seeing Spectre. Not a brilliant film but I still quite enjoyed it nonetheless. The plot was a bit confusing at times but magnificent background scenery and many of the figures from past Bonds reappear, Blofeld, a Jaws like figure etc They had a confrontation in Blofeld's lair as used to be par for the course and even a final chase down the Thames a la 'World is not enough'. The side plot of 'C' trying to replace Bond with technology also fitted in with the times.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
I was mystified why Bond didn't finish off the henchman when he went through the windscreen in Austria. A swift bullet in the back of the head would have saved Bond aggravation later on.
This would be the same Bond character who produced the first $1 billion dollar movie for the British film industry in 2012, 50 years since he first appeared!
The movies are made by MGM and Columbia (Sony) so hardly 'British'. Great for Pinewood (which is building a very large movie studio in suburban Atlanta) and British technical crews.
Indeed that is so, and Danjaq - a company named for Saltzman and Broccoli's wives - holds the copyrights to the Bond video stuff. But the money comes from MGM and Columbia (Sony).
Good for Eon and whatever they get is great. Anything that helps Pinewood - and they have the 007 sound stage - is good.
Indeed, Pinewood was also used for the new Star Wars film I believe, as well as the likes of Harry Potter and the Avengers
It was used for the 3 original Star Wars movies too, not to mention Indiana Jones.
Indeed and Spiderman and Mission Impossible amongst many others
Ive just been reading through the whole Carson fibbing episode. I see many are suggesting that its not explosive enough to sink him, but I think it will soak in with more of the GOP voters than many suggest.
As someone who stuck some very early cash on Christie I'd kill for that guy to make some waves in the contest but I cant see it unless he just stays in long.
At this point my money is on Rubio as the one the GOP will go for.
I do not know about Mr Corbyn, but this is at least the 3rd ceremonial occasion where Mrs Corbyn has chosen not to accompany her husband on his official duties. She does not seem to care too much for Britain.
That's an amazingly old-fashioned view. Some spouses get deeply involved in their partners' careers, some don't. It tells us nothing about her views on Britain. We knew little of Mrs Major, so far as I can recall, but there's no reason to think ill of her.
Comments
Furthermore you are wrong actually on getting married etc. You can only get married if you are under 18 with Parental Consent.
You are wrong on joining the military too. You can only join the military if you are under 18 with Parental Consent. Furthermore you still can't be put on the frontline until 18.
Are you proposing that 16 year olds should get the vote if they get Parental Consent to vote for the party they want to vote for?
Good night all Phew - you had me sweating there. Not used to having to give greater clarity to defend my PB ramblings!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/raise-driving-age-to-18-government-commissioned-report
Unsurprising, given young drivers make so many bad decisions that end up with accidents. As a society, we are very clearly moving towards 18 as the age of adulthood across all areas. These have been moves supported by the left. They only take the opposite view on voting as a partisan approach to help the left. It would be foolhardy for pro-EU membership Tories to give way on them for one referendum for similar political reasons, and would come back to haunt the party.
EDIT: Sorry Richard, great minds and all that!
Leaders of Momentum include a senior member of a group involved in violent anti-gentrification protests, self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists, and paid staff of parties which oppose Labour, including a man who was until five weeks ago official spokesman for a Green MEP.
http://bit.ly/1WFEuAz
Do you have any evidence that there are any 16/17 olds in the armed forces who are married?
I can't see many children earning that unless they are put in a cushy job by a rich parent, so certainly not those working flat out as described on the hours side. I suspect exactly zero children earn that much money. So it seems that no 16 year olds will be paying income tax anyway.
He sang eternal father....
He probably didn't sing the national anthem
He hasn't changed his expression once.
@ShippersUnbound: New human rights law: judges will be told they will not have to follow rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
@ShippersUnbound: British bill of rights will contain explicit statement backing “freedom of expression” for the press.
@ShippersUnbound: Human rights laws would in future apply only in Britain, so they can't be used to sue soldiers for their actions “on the battlefield”
@ShippersUnbound: New bill of rights will be "a reference for individual rights" rather than a body of law “whose main aim is as a route to compensation”.
However, I do think it would be useful for children to be able to vote at 16 for the purpose of engaging them in the democratic process. Especially for those who come from never-voting households, it would be useful for this to be part of Civic Education at school.
Teachers might have undue influence? But how many 16 & 17 year olds are there in any particular constituency? And given that part of the studies would have to be about the 'secret ballot' and 'making up your own mind', wouldn't it be worth while?
Aha I see the planned 'Associate Membership' scam has penetrated these pages. But I am afraid you have described it pretty well. It is indeed intended to be a relabelling of of the status quo, which of course means more integration over time. It will be described as achieving the old 'in Europe, not run by Europe' goal but will be nothing of the sort.
On a side note the car park at the Odeon Multiplex I saw it was the fullest I have ever seen it and it too a while to find a space so it is clearly a box office smash!
There always has to be a line, but we need to be clear where that line is. Incitement to violence, threats of (and the likely carrying out of) violence, and some caveats about course of conduct and harassment.
There is a twitter troll who repeatedly winds up as many people on merseyside as he can. He has received many a visit and a phone call from Merseyside police. He even once got a phone call about a 'retweet' of somebody else's tweet. Yes a sodding retweet.
It was used by American colonies complaining about being taxed and governed from overseas but without any representatives in parliament.
An amazing load of rubbish is being spouted attempting to justify giving children the vote.
The Craig Bonds have been too anal retentive on Bond's background and motivation.
The PLP are the architects of their own demise. The safeguards were in place and they themselves decided to circumvent those safeguards.
I think the left wing are right: the Blairite legacy is not one of principles to be put into practice by government, but one of technique for getting elected. When the 'moderate' leadership candidates were trying to express reasons why people should vote for them, it was just waffle because they had nothing, really, to say.
The only reason Mr Corbyn stood for election as leader was that it was his turn. It was nothing to do with his possible credentials for leadership.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, the next person to stand for the leadership to represent Mr Corbyn's wing of the party will be someone of greater leadership potential.
The real question is, whether the electorate of this country will ever be ready to try the approach offered by Mr Corbyn & his followers.
Unless some other party comes to prominence before the Conservatives run out of steam/the economy tanks/the migrant crisis swamps the whole of Europe/any other event that tips the balance, then a hard-left Labour party led by someone with charisma could look attractive.
An 11,30pm start after the adverts is certainly a way of concentrating the mind on if a film is too long.
20 Mins at least IMO and not a patch on Skyfall despite the superb opening sequence
Going back to first principles is fine. We don't need any more invisible cars.
Bond is about action, girls, and exotic locations, plus a pace that drags you along fast enough to ignore any plot inconsistencies. Casino Royale and Skyfall were great. Spectre simply isn't.
Kante is a fans favourite for his tackling, I think that was his first shot on goal all season.
Newacastle up next, where Vardy will want to set a record. Great days to be a foxes fan!
I don't know who played Blofeld in Spectre but he should have been called Dyson because he sucked all the time. He wasn't the least bit threatening.
Good that the gun barrel intro is back though.
Good night, all - and since I don't usually post enough even to be saying goodnight, may I add: thanks to everyone for the interesting discussions you have regularly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon_Productions
I have to confess - since seeing Goldfinger (shortest and still the best synthesis of the Bond components) at the age of 13 at Skipton Odeon, when the gun barrel logo appears and you hear those two notes - DA DA - I'm right there. It's like Pavlov's dogs. When you are of a certain age, the James Bond Theme and John Barry's music just does that to you.
Good for Eon and whatever they get is great. Anything that helps Pinewood - and they have the 007 sound stage - is good.
I have the gun barrel logo music from Goldfinger as my cell phone ring tone. I am officially lame. But every time my phone rings everyone looks up.
Cue the know nothing's falling for it in bold type
As someone who stuck some very early cash on Christie I'd kill for that guy to make some waves in the contest but I cant see it unless he just stays in long.
At this point my money is on Rubio as the one the GOP will go for.