No time to die - great movie. Second best of the Craig run after Casino Royale. Really enjoyed it, my wife did as well and she's not a huge fan of the series. Lea Seydoux looks and talks uncannily like my wife which was a bit jarring for me personally.
I'd rate it as 5th best Bond movie.
1. GoldenEye 2. Casino Royale 3. Thunderball 4. Live and Let Die 5. No Time to Die
Would be my list.
I think No Time To Die started well but steadily deteriorated as the film went on - and it did go on.
I won't go into spoilers on here but though it had potential there are several things I really didn't like about it.
It’s a shame it’s impossible to discuss on here because of spoilers. I dare say we can reconvene the debate after Christmas, when everyone has seen it.
I haven't seen it yet (Weds for me), but I know how it ends.
Speaking of endings, if you're even a little bit invested in Marvel movies my friend from Sony Pictures has said that Venom 2 is a must watch, especially the credits scene. I've got that booked in next Monday.
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
It would be the end of the monarchy, particularly if it is a popular bill.
The government resigns and we have an election, they'll win on a manifesto on reducing the power of the monarchy, if not outright abolition.
Taking back control from unelected rulers is popular I'm told.
It would not. If it was an unpopular bill he would get his way anyway.
If it was a popular bill he would be unlikely to refuse to sign it and if he tried would likely have to abdicate in favour of William.
There can be no election held without the Monarch agreeing to dissolve Parliament either, the Monarch could simply create a new government from existing MPs
You are now making a case for the monarch to overrule parliament
You never cease to amaze
And recruit thousands to the Republican movement
I am not making a case, merely saying constitutionally the Monarch can still refuse to consent to legislation and if a Bill is unpopular would get away with it
No she or he would not
It would be an outrage to democracy and rightly see demands for the abolition the monarchy
No it wouldn't, if a bill was unpopular quite the contrary, it would be respecting the will of the people.
MPs are elected representatives, not delegates, they do not always agree with public opinion.
The Monarch may on occasion find that if they agreed with the public not most MPs on a Bill they could get away with refusing to consent to a Bill
The Cambridge "educated" Starkey's complaint is apparently that HMQ finds gin and dubonnet more interesting than he is. Easy to sympathise.
I'm assuming there's a challenge between Oxford and Cambridge on letting in the dumbest candidate each year.
I see your Prince Charles and raise you a Jeffrey Archer, I see your Jeffrey Archer and raise you a Richard Burgon, so on and so forth.
Except chas n rich really did go to Cambridge, Jeff went to a summer school on the premises of an Oxford college. You can tell from his moving to grantchester where his spiritual home was.
My issue with OHMSS is that while the movie is well plotted, has great action scenes, and has some fantastic performances from people like Telly Sevalas, it unfortunately has a hole at its core.
George Lazenby can't act.
And that's why, despite being a thoroughly enjoyable romp, it's not a top five Bond.
I have to disagree. I think Lazenby was great. He was offered a *7* movie contract during the filming, but turned it down because his agent convinced him that Bond movies were going out of fashion. (Lol!)
In an alternative universe I think we'd be taking about him as the best Bond.
I’m often struck by the way people toss out ‘X’ can’t act, when I think what they mean is they don’t like the way ‘X’ plays the role. I can’t believe people get to star in films who cannot act, and no one steps in to tell them, or indeed stop them...
The Cambridge "educated" Starkey's complaint is apparently that HMQ finds gin and dubonnet more interesting than he is. Easy to sympathise.
I'm assuming there's a challenge between Oxford and Cambridge on letting in the dumbest candidate each year.
I see your Prince Charles and raise you a Jeffrey Archer, I see your Jeffrey Archer and raise you a Richard Burgon, so on and so forth.
Except chas n rich really did go to Cambridge, Jeff went to a summer school on the premises of an Oxford college. You can tell from his moving to grantchester where his spiritual home was.
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
Anecdotally Charles is thick as shit. From a friend of a friend who used to try to ‘tutor’ him. Limited attention span, and just really thick.
He isn't thick, certainly he is more of an intellectual than most royals and the average member of the population
I think that's right (I've met him briefly), though it's a dangerous trait in a constitutional monarch. He has very definite views on lots of things, and will be visibly uncomfortable if the government of the day contradicts them. I don't dislike him as some seem to, and think he means well, but I'm more comfortable for a monarch with someone like the Queen having no known opinions about anything.
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
It would be the end of the monarchy, particularly if it is a popular bill.
The government resigns and we have an election, they'll win on a manifesto on reducing the power of the monarchy, if not outright abolition.
Taking back control from unelected rulers is popular I'm told.
It would not. If it was an unpopular bill he would get his way anyway.
If it was a popular bill he would be unlikely to refuse to sign it and if he tried would likely have to abdicate in favour of William.
There can be no election held without the Monarch agreeing to dissolve Parliament either, the Monarch could simply create a new government from existing MPs
You are now making a case for the monarch to overrule parliament
You never cease to amaze
And recruit thousands to the Republican movement
I am not making a case, merely saying constitutionally the Monarch can still refuse to consent to legislation and if a Bill is unpopular would get away with it
No she or he would not
It would be an outrage to democracy and rightly see demands for the abolition the monarchy
Depends. In principle, the only things preventing the government presenting and passing the Firstborn (Conscription for Unending War Against France) Bill into law are a potential rebellion in the Commons and the refusal of the Queen to give consent. "Don't embarrass Queenie" is one of the important shock absorbers somewhere in the underpinning of our constitution. America could really do with something similar right now.
Question is whether there's a scenario where HMQ would be wise to refuse consent which isn't taken from the Archer/Dobbs "ideas too mad even for my books" slush pile.
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.
Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
Yeah, they would change that.
Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.
Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?
People decide what is legal afterwards.
But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.
I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
They can't change that.
Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.
A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input. Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?
They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.
And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.
*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.
'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!
Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
Anecdotally Charles is thick as shit. From a friend of a friend who used to try to ‘tutor’ him. Limited attention span, and just really thick.
He isn't thick, certainly he is more of an intellectual than most royals and the average member of the population
I think that's right (I've met him briefly), though it's a dangerous trait in a constitutional monarch. He has very definite views on lots of things, and will be visibly uncomfortable if the government of the day contradicts them. I don't dislike him as some seem to, and think he means well, but I'm more comfortable for a monarch with someone like the Queen having no known opinions about anything.
As long as they accept manifesto commitments of governments other legislation, especially if not popular, can be questioned
Bottom line, I'm a supporter of our governmental system. If someone tried to change that by making us a republic I'd oppose that. If someone tried to change that by ignoring crucial conventions around monarchical consent, I'd oppose that too.
Otherwise I don't really support our system at all.
No time to die - great movie. Second best of the Craig run after Casino Royale. Really enjoyed it, my wife did as well and she's not a huge fan of the series. Lea Seydoux looks and talks uncannily like my wife which was a bit jarring for me personally.
I'd rate it as 5th best Bond movie.
1. GoldenEye 2. Casino Royale 3. Thunderball 4. Live and Let Die 5. No Time to Die
Would be my list.
Wait.
You have Live and Let Die on there, but no Goldfinger?
And where's On Her Majesty's Secret Service?!
That's a really good Bond - but top five? Tricky.
I haven't seen NTTD, but of the rest, I'd argue it's the best bond film (with Casino Royale a close 2nd).
My issue with OHMSS is that while the movie is well plotted, has great action scenes, and has some fantastic performances from people like Telly Sevalas, it unfortunately has a hole at its core.
George Lazenby can't act.
And that's why, despite being a thoroughly enjoyable romp, it's not a top five Bond.
He was also way too young and arrogant, whereas a little more maturity might have made him a better actor.
He basically threw away his entire film career when he quit Bond after just one film, following some absolutely terrible advice, because it had all gone to his head.
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.
Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
Yeah, they would change that.
Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.
Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?
People decide what is legal afterwards.
But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.
I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
They can't change that.
Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.
A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input. Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?
They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.
And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.
*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.
'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!
Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.
In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes or force that Monarch to abdicate in favour of the next in line. Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.
However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
Anecdotally Charles is thick as shit. From a friend of a friend who used to try to ‘tutor’ him. Limited attention span, and just really thick.
He isn't thick, certainly he is more of an intellectual than most royals and the average member of the population
I think that's right (I've met him briefly), though it's a dangerous trait in a constitutional monarch. He has very definite views on lots of things, and will be visibly uncomfortable if the government of the day contradicts them. I don't dislike him as some seem to, and think he means well, but I'm more comfortable for a monarch with someone like the Queen having no known opinions about anything.
My view as to why Charles is so attacked (eg by Republic) is because he is really the only available serious target relevant to their aims. He is not very good with chat up lines, though. And if you consider The Princes Trust, and other initiatives, he has some remarkable achievements.
Question for you - was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?
I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.
Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference. So I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock.
Nick Macpherson @nickmacpherson2 · 54m The inexorable rise in bond yields is a reminder that it is as much the markets as central banks which determine the interest rates people pay. Debt interest is likely to be the fastest growing spending programme in the forthcoming spending review. #soundmoney
It will certainly be interesting to see how this pans out, rate rises expected to start this year now. From the FT:
Investors expect the Bank of England to increase rates in December for the first time since the Covid-19 crisis after policymakers sounded the alarm over inflation, pushing UK government bond yields to their highest level in two-and-a-half years.
Traders had already been tweaking bets on the BoE’s lift-off from the record low of 0.1 per cent since the central bank last month signalled concern over high inflation and said it could raise rates even before its bond-buying programme ran out at the end of the year.
Markets are pricing a rise to 0.25 per cent in the base rate by December, with a further increase to 0.5 per cent by March next year.
Comments
MPs are elected representatives, not delegates, they do not always agree with public opinion.
The Monarch may on occasion find that if they agreed with the public not most MPs on a Bill they could get away with refusing to consent to a Bill
Question is whether there's a scenario where HMQ would be wise to refuse consent which isn't taken from the Archer/Dobbs "ideas too mad even for my books" slush pile.
They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.
And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.
*I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.
'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!
Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
NEW THREAD
This thread had been overthrown
As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.
As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
Otherwise I don't really support our system at all.
He basically threw away his entire film career when he quit Bond after just one film, following some absolutely terrible advice, because it had all gone to his head.
In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes or force that Monarch to abdicate in favour of the next in line. Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
@NickPalmer
Question for you - was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?
I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.
Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference. So I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock.
I think my only options are Ireland or Denmark.
Off with this thread
Mixing discussions, High Yield Bond?