I find Moore's films more rewatchable than, say, You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever.. and let's not mention (the unofficial) Never Say Never Again.
In the later two, Connery did a far sillier Bond that anything Moore ever did, IMHO. He gets his credits from his first four ones.
-"My name's Plenty, Plenty O'Toole". - "Named after your father I trust"
Farage is incredibly good at using Tiktok to get his message across. He has 1.2 million Tiktok followers, more than the combined total of followers for all other UK members of parliament. (The runner-up Zarah Sultana has 450k followers.)
In a recent podcast, Alistair Cambell & Rory Stewart were talking about the incredible effectiveness of Tiktok for politicians to get their message across. The populist runner-up in the Romainian election (George Simion) also has 1.6 million Tiktok followers.
On another subject, I've just completed my migration application ftom legacy benefits over to UC. Whilst the three week back hole between end of legacy and first UC payment is not ideal I'm pleasantly surprised thus far at the ease of the process. I'll update if that holds or falls apart but I think in a day I've done and sent everything required....... Not that I'm a fan of UC in general but process wise not bad
UC is 13 years old so your comment is an illustration of how slow some government policies take to implement. It's UBI in all but name for those that are wanting UBI. (It's also one of the Conservative's better ideas, surprisingly.)
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I agree, but think a Bond being released in a world where Bond's ultimate imagined boss is Sir Titface somehow just wouldn't work.
When we get rid of his Government and take a few steps in the right direction, the planets will align and Bond will return, Bezos or no.
Moore is my favourite Bond.
I reckon an 'Early Bond'* spin-off franchise could do well - Bond in the 1950s: cold war, low-tech, 50s glamour, war heroes, film starlets, French riviera, people dressing for dinner, etc. etc.
(*'Early Bond', not 'Young Bond')
We need to make him accessible. None of this Anglo-Norman Castle Scot background! Set him somewhere that appeals to most people - how about Essex. Basildon Bond?
Brown believed his own genius - hence 'ending (Tory) boom and bust'. The reality is that he inherited a booming economy and then decided to open the taps for reasons. Of course the sale of the gold is more complicated than it is sometimes portrayed, but his financial negligence around his OWN fiscal rules was shocking. And then you have the vast expansion of PFI (yes the Tories started it, but Brown went BIG). PFI took spending off the annual returns and inter the perpetual future. All those lightbulbs changed for 300 quid...
On PFI I’m not fully behind the consensus that it was a disaster. A lot of the money spent was capex. If not for PFI, it would either have never been spent at all (and our public realm would be even more crumbling) or it would have been spent by necessity years later, at several times the price.
There are plenty of examples of poor PFI deals, but there are always plenty of examples of poor infrastructure projects. We know from the story of HS2, nuclear power and multiple other infrastructure fails in recent decades that a problem postponed is a problem doubled. PFI was a rare example of JFDI.
It got things done, this is true, but at an inflated cost.
To me it illustrates well one of the golden rules of trading. If you can deal with a counterparty who is doing the trade for reasons other than pure £££ you're likely to be the winner.
In this case the counterparty driven by non £££ considerations (being to keep debt off the books) was the government. So the other side - the private sector providers - were able to make hay.
The replies from across the spectrum on this show how far PFI-as-failure has become embedded in the political mind. As with all things it contains some truth, but loses nuance.
1. A number of PFI contractors went bust. They didn’t negotiate a very good deal with government 2. The super-profits attributable to some of them came from a wheeze - a bad wheeze in hindsight - that had nothing to do with government contracting, but was a benefit of falling interest rates and refinancing 3. Sure, we didn’t PFI some of our most pressing infrastructure projects, but nor did we build them, which brings me on to 4. Those decrying PFI need to describe the realistic alternative history. And that alternative history is that the investment wasn’t made. Precisely because of the Treasury accounting that PFI circumvented.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
To have a credible alternative path for PFI you have to argue that government would have thrown out the usual bean counting orthodoxy and thought “to hell with it, let’s build those things”.
This. But the the would needs to be should. If you decide something requires to be built you have to find the money for it from somewhere and there needs to be honesty about where it comes from. Don't disguise the cost in wasteful funding schemes but be transparent that improvements need to be paid for and this will come out of taxes.
Well the other schemes also need to be paid for out of taxes too, not saving a penny of taxpayers money by "keeping it off the books".
The Government makes its own rules that it needs to follow and it can change the rules as it deems appropriate.
Cheap, or not so cheap, accounting tricks fool nobody and achieve nothing.
State Pensions are 'off the books' so where do you start with this. Chagos v Pensions? Then there are all the contractual subsidies. Do you want to start adding them all?
Chagos is a flea upon a flea when it comes to government finances.
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I agree, but think a Bond being released in a world where Bond's ultimate imagined boss is Sir Titface somehow just wouldn't work.
When we get rid of his Government and take a few steps in the right direction, the planets will align and Bond will return, Bezos or no.
Moore is my favourite Bond.
A View To A Kill is my favourite Bond theme.
#guiltypleasure
Not a guilty pleasure - the theme is excellent and widely seen as the best thing about the film bar Grace Jones.
The film itself is a guilty pleasure. Leading lady being a weak spot.
Moore is much older in it, and somehow I think that it was written with an older love interest in mind - it would have seemed fitting for him to have ended up with Linda Grey - it had a Dallas/ Dynasty feel.
He also plays a more serious Bond and it has a darker tone to it.
Incidentally, Amberley Museum is holding a 40th anniversary reenactment of it on Sunday and the Director, John Glen - who I'm a big fan of - is coming.
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I agree, but think a Bond being released in a world where Bond's ultimate imagined boss is Sir Titface somehow just wouldn't work.
When we get rid of his Government and take a few steps in the right direction, the planets will align and Bond will return, Bezos or no.
Moore is my favourite Bond.
I reckon an 'Early Bond'* spin-off franchise could do well - Bond in the 1950s: cold war, low-tech, 50s glamour, war heroes, film starlets, French riviera, people dressing for dinner, etc. etc.
(*'Early Bond', not 'Young Bond')
We need to make him accessible. None of this Anglo-Norman Castle Scot background! Set him somewhere that appeals to most people - how about Essex. Basildon Bond?
We have Harry Palmer for that.
Actually an updated Ipcress File would be far more relevant to today than a Bond, with its cynicism and grime.
[Sunil jizzes himself in a frenzy over some Greggs vegan sausage rolls]
"I'll have what he's having!"
I really hate the Taxdodgers who own Greggs.
But as a happy meat eater I have to say their vegan sausage rolls are lush.
Anyone can own a bit of Greggs, it is listed on the LSE. It's on a bit of a dip at the moment.
I like them, they operate in deeply unfashionable places and are OK. They are the Spar or Travelodge of bakers. Never first pick, not exciting but you won't starve.
(Actually you could starve in a Travelodge with only minimal effort).
I like their product. I just hate their tax dodging.
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
British my arse and stick your butcher's apron where the sun does not shine
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I agree, but think a Bond being released in a world where Bond's ultimate imagined boss is Sir Titface somehow just wouldn't work.
When we get rid of his Government and take a few steps in the right direction, the planets will align and Bond will return, Bezos or no.
Moore is my favourite Bond.
A View To A Kill is my favourite Bond theme.
#guiltypleasure
Not a guilty pleasure - the theme is excellent and widely seen as the best thing about the film bar Grace Jones.
The film itself is a guilty pleasure. Leading lady being a weak spot.
Moore is much older in it, and somehow I think that it was written with an older love interest in mind - it would have seemed fitting for him to have ended up with Linda Grey - it had a Dallas/ Dynasty feel.
He also plays a more serious Bond and it has a darker tone to it.
Incidentally, Amberley Museum is holding a 40th anniversary reenactment of it on Sunday and the Director, John Glen - who I'm a big fan of - is coming.
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
British my arse and stick your butcher's apron where the sun does not shine
Bond IS British. What flag was on the parachute in *that* ski opening credits scene?
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
British my arse and stick your butcher's apron where the sun does not shine
Using Bond for protecting grouse moors and whisky exports would have been rather limiting for the storylines, malcy!
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
British my arse and stick your butcher's apron where the sun does not shine
Bond IS British. What flag was on the parachute in *that* ski opening credits scene?
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I agree, but think a Bond being released in a world where Bond's ultimate imagined boss is Sir Titface somehow just wouldn't work.
When we get rid of his Government and take a few steps in the right direction, the planets will align and Bond will return, Bezos or no.
Moore is my favourite Bond.
I reckon an 'Early Bond'* spin-off franchise could do well - Bond in the 1950s: cold war, low-tech, 50s glamour, war heroes, film starlets, French riviera, people dressing for dinner, etc. etc.
(*'Early Bond', not 'Young Bond')
We need to make him accessible. None of this Anglo-Norman Castle Scot background! Set him somewhere that appeals to most people - how about Essex. Basildon Bond?
We have Harry Palmer for that.
Actually an updated Ipcress File would be far more relevant to today than a Bond, with its cynicism and grime.
You can imagine the Q for our times:
"Sorry, Bond, we've had to retire the motor pool - too many potholes you see..."
It won't happen, because Bezos owns it now and is a twat, but the next James Bond - I think - needs to go more in the Roger Moore direction.
We need fun. It needs to be extremely fun. Sexy opening scenes. A bit of humour. Big Union Jack's on parachutes, balloons, submarines and cars. Sex appeal. Gorgeous women. Amazing food. Great locations. Maybe a bit less of the ooft uhft! punch scenes and eyebrow raising, though.
We need to feel good about being British again and being the good guys.
I want it to be colourful. Literally. Films these days are colour corrected to within an inch of their life, and they are all too muddy blue or muddy red. I saw "Thunderbolts" last week and the cinematography was awful. I want drone shots of a Greek church immaculate in white with a pristine blue sky and a red ball in the foreground. Give me a black woman in a yellow dress and Bond in a jet black suit and white shirt with the top button done up. A line of dialogue from "A Matter Of Life And Death" is "we are starved of colour up there".
'One is starved for Technicolor up there.'
By Marius Goring's Conductor 71 on his first trip to Earth.
(Fair's fair. I did it to Sunil.)
Damn, apologies. And it is genuinely one of my all time favourite films. I used to live in a shared house and one of the occupants was a French girl, and we always argued about who had the best culture. I had to pull out Turner for art, but Hitchcock and the Archers got me past for film.
I'm sure Hitchcock's sheer brilliance gave her Vertigo.
You're sure? Or is that just your Suspicion?
It's my desire to make awesome puns, something for which I am Notorious.
[Sunil jizzes himself in a frenzy over some Greggs vegan sausage rolls]
"I'll have what he's having!"
I really hate the Taxdodgers who own Greggs.
But as a happy meat eater I have to say their vegan sausage rolls are lush.
Anyone can own a bit of Greggs, it is listed on the LSE. It's on a bit of a dip at the moment.
I like them, they operate in deeply unfashionable places and are OK. They are the Spar or Travelodge of bakers. Never first pick, not exciting but you won't starve.
(Actually you could starve in a Travelodge with only minimal effort).
I like their product. I just hate their tax dodging.
"In response to the new VAT rules, Greggs adjusted its business practices by serving baked goods at ambient temperature rather than keeping them hot or reheating them for customers. This approach meant the products remained VAT-exempt, as VAT is only charged on food that is intentionally kept hot for sale or reheated for the customer.
"Freshly baked savouries should not be subject to VAT 'as we don't keep them hot after they've been made nor are they heated for the customer.
This practice is entirely legal and is a common approach among UK bakeries to comply with VAT regulations. It is not considered tax dodging, but rather a legitimate business response to the tax code."
You don't need to arrange your affairs to suit the taxman.
[Sunil jizzes himself in a frenzy over some Greggs vegan sausage rolls]
"I'll have what he's having!"
I really hate the Taxdodgers who own Greggs.
But as a happy meat eater I have to say their vegan sausage rolls are lush.
Anyone can own a bit of Greggs, it is listed on the LSE. It's on a bit of a dip at the moment.
I like them, they operate in deeply unfashionable places and are OK. They are the Spar or Travelodge of bakers. Never first pick, not exciting but you won't starve.
(Actually you could starve in a Travelodge with only minimal effort).
I like their product. I just hate their tax dodging.
"In response to the new VAT rules, Greggs adjusted its business practices by serving baked goods at ambient temperature rather than keeping them hot or reheating them for customers. This approach meant the products remained VAT-exempt, as VAT is only charged on food that is intentionally kept hot for sale or reheated for the customer.
"Freshly baked savouries should not be subject to VAT 'as we don't keep them hot after they've been made nor are they heated for the customer.
This practice is entirely legal and is a common approach among UK bakeries to comply with VAT regulations. It is not considered tax dodging, but rather a legitimate business response to the tax code."
You don't need to arrange your affairs to suit the taxman.
[Sunil jizzes himself in a frenzy over some Greggs vegan sausage rolls]
"I'll have what he's having!"
I really hate the Taxdodgers who own Greggs.
But as a happy meat eater I have to say their vegan sausage rolls are lush.
Anyone can own a bit of Greggs, it is listed on the LSE. It's on a bit of a dip at the moment.
I like them, they operate in deeply unfashionable places and are OK. They are the Spar or Travelodge of bakers. Never first pick, not exciting but you won't starve.
(Actually you could starve in a Travelodge with only minimal effort).
I like their product. I just hate their tax dodging.
Never had you down as a Guardian reader
I object to many taxes. But if they are the law then companies should be forced to pay them just like everyone else.
I’m astonished 52% of people have heard of it. The Starmer spinners are right that it’s not on the tip of the publics tongue, but that’s they are concentrating on that distraction technique because centrist political commentators and journalists seem to think it’s a dud
52% of those who respond to polls.
And given the question mentions "the government's proposals to give sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius", I suspect you'd get a lot of Tory/Reform voters saying they don't agree anyway.
For those that haven't heard, or are almost completely unaware, "give sovereignty" is a loaded enough phrase to draw out opinions anyway.
I vaguely remember some polling where the parties proposing something were swapped, and people still voted along party lines. You could probably poll now, suggesting any number of made up policies for Labour, and find plenty of people that have not just "heard" about them, but also have an opinion.
I think politically it's a talking point reached for by some with nothing to say otherwise.
And I think its continued presence on conversation is an artefact of 1) our media ecosystem and 2) the lack of a Government communication strategy capable of writing the agenda.
I would appreciate if Moonrabbit would answer my question as to whether the Chagos Deal makes the Falklands more or less secure.
Regarding the header, this is simply a measure of awareness. There is no such thing as being aware of this deal and liking it. It's not like welfare where some are in receipt and some are paying, or a tax increase, assisted dying, or the NHS - there are no winners and losers or ideological fault lines. There are just losers.
Those who are in favour are just being reflexively pro-Labour (it's about equal with their poll rating) and are either ignorant about the deal or are acting from partisan loyalty.
My mind is still open on your question. persuade me. 🙂
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time.. But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US. What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?
Comments
- "Named after your father I trust"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/11/nigel-farage-is-a-hit-on-tiktok-but-are-young-voters-listening-or-laughing
In a recent podcast, Alistair Cambell & Rory Stewart were talking about the incredible effectiveness of Tiktok for politicians to get their message across. The populist runner-up in the Romainian election (George Simion) also has 1.6 million Tiktok followers.
Chagos is a flea upon a flea when it comes to government finances.
Actually an updated Ipcress File would be far more relevant to today than a Bond, with its cynicism and grime.
https://railwaymoviedatabase.com/a-view-to-kill/
"Sorry, Bond, we've had to retire the motor pool - too many potholes you see..."
NEW THREAD
"Freshly baked savouries should not be subject to VAT 'as we don't keep them hot after they've been made nor are they heated for the customer.
This practice is entirely legal and is a common approach among UK bakeries to comply with VAT regulations. It is not considered tax dodging, but rather a legitimate business response to the tax code."
You don't need to arrange your affairs to suit the taxman.
https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/btr/187-855
And I think its continued presence on conversation is an artefact of 1) our media ecosystem and 2) the lack of a Government communication strategy capable of writing the agenda.
I would answer, argument it’s less secure is based on precedent has been set by this case. But has a precedent been set, if each situation is unique? Put more specifically, when inhabitants have chosen, have there been instances UN and courts ruled against the choice of inhabitants? That would set a precedent making UK sovereignty of Falklands more insecure, our enemies like Moscow, would line up to game the UN workings, throwing their weight behind a claimant.
I’m not in favour of this Governments Chagos deal. My header was sharing my understanding they chose this option wanting to be seen as a fair and responsible power, rather than simply claiming land outright without international support, on basis this approach brings more leverage to our diplomacy, more influence, friends, more security deals and trade. Which actually is not new - it’s identical reasoning in 1898 British Empire chose to sign a lease on something else. They thought they would get more of the good stuff doing it that way.
I know you disagree. the other day you fully signed up to 1 million years BC diplomacy, Raquel Welch in Faun skins and a club in her hand. Perhaps one day we should have a simple header IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED? and debate it out underneath. I’m certain it’s not as open and shut as you sure it is.
My personal preference is neither sovereignty or the deal. With either sovereignty or lease, UK gets absolutely nothing in defence and security that isn’t also pooled with others. Let US and India deal and pay this time..
But is that realistic? Was it ever an option?
Two things you unrealistically dismiss Lucky. Keeping sovereignty WILL come with brickbats and loss of influence. When it went into court, no one in the world turned up for us, apart from USA and some little places slipped a backhander to vote with us. No NATO allies, no Canada, no Australia. No one in the Indian Ocean or South China Sea, as India had used our Imperial Squat to whip them all up against doing any business with us.
Secondly, when UK got into base talks back in 1960s, it came hand in hand with interlocking UK defence and security with the US catalogue of expensive kit. Are we in any position to decouple? Seriously?
I don’t mind Reform making same glib mistakes as you, but fear Conservative front bench making the same and being unrealistic about what options actually were. in government or opposition, Lab & Con have been as one in agreement being interlocked with US equipment and security since 1960s. Today in opposition Tories attacking the deal as far too favourable to the US.
What exactly is Kemi saying, what exactly is her policy, on interlocked with US on security and key bits of equipment?