The Bond retrospective - Number 20

Did I ever mention I am a big Bond fan? Well I am, and as I've recently been watching them I thought I'd rank them, for my own mind as much as anything (it's bloody hard to think of best and worst in your head with 22 films)

I am only doing up to the end of the Brosnan era - I thought it best to let the dust settle on the Craig era, but for what it's worth I think Casino Royale was certainly top five material, and Quantum of Solace was considerably worse

So without further ado...Number 20 (or bottom)


The Man with the Golden Gun

In this instalment Roger Moore’s Bond faces off against one of the world’s best assassins, Francisco Scaramanga, played by Christopher Lee – sounds good, doesn’t it? Unfortunately it falls flat on its face and unlike somewhat ‘marmite’ films like Moonraker, it is consistently seen as one of the worst films simply because it’s so dull – the slow-paced, lacklustre plot about some sort of solar device literally sends me to sleep, and rather than Scaramanga being a sinister assassin he comes over more as a doe-eyed geek in awe of Bond, and that’s even with a decent performance from Lee, and while the ‘funhouse’ ending starts well the finale is completely unfulfilling. Then there’s quite possibly the weakest showing by any Bond girl in the form of Mary Goodnight, played by Britt Ekland, who gets almost no screen time and is seemingly just thrown in at the end, avoid at all costs.

Pros:
The plot is a typical spy thriller, albeit poorly executed
Christopher Lee

Cons:
Goodnight
Incredibly slow plot with next to no action, or comedy
That caterwauling by Lulu
Third nipple?

Bloody oath, mate! (or is that 'Shiela'?)

In a rather bold move by Australia's first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has said Australia should move to become a republic when the queen dies

This is an interesting play on an issue that has largely been quiet for ten years since the last referendum in 1999 - personally I am in agreement with her, and many republicans share the view that the queen, who is immensely popular throughout the Commonwealth, is only going out one way - it will be the installation of her less respected heirs that bear the scrutiny from the modern public

I'm not sure whether this will have more traction here or in Oz, however - Australia has very little to do with the monarchy in real terms, and personally I'd prefer to be in the Australian's situation, who benefit from a ceremonial head of state without the pomp, or the cash, than the British, but whatever my feelings - Republicanism remains much more viable down under than in the Motherland according to most polls

In terms of Ozzie politics, this seems to be another attempt at a dividing line between herself and the staunchly conservative Abbott - it won't surprise you that Labor are the party of Republicans, so if anything this will be an optimistic shot at more liberal (small l - I hate these two party names) swing voters, a gamble that Australia is more republican now than it was under Howard, and yet another reason for the moderate to hate the Catholic, abortion-opposing, gaffe-prone Abbott

If you're interested I quite like Bryant's latest blog about the narrowness of the Australian electoral system - where they are all forced to vote and yet a smaller number of swing votes than ours decide their government, they of course use blooming AV - yet more evidence that constituency based parliaments do not work for their country, might've been a good idea once, but no more

As an aside - does anyone have a real defence of the monarchy post-Queen? It always centres on her - but she's been there since a time when we liked hereditary rule and since before most of us were born, what happens when some tosspot who no-one respects takes over?

We'll probably roll over and take it...as usual

Where Have I been...

Yes I'm still alive, what with holidays, work and general laziness I haven't found time to blog

Personally I think the lack of a government to despise has killed my mojo a bit - not that I'm pro-Tory or anything, but a new government and all that, and they are somewhat better than the last lot...give it a year or two

Anyway...now this is policing:

The Big Questions need answering!

Such as:

What policies have the Tories/Liberals ditched?

Will there be a VAT rise?

Where will the cuts come?

and the really important one...

will there be a Tory and a Lib Dem on Question Time?

Well this is fun...

So the votes have been counted, but I am not going to bore you with tales of what Clegg should demand, or point out the Tory idiots who refuse to compromise despite not winning a majority

Instead, here's a few facts and figures:

Cons got 10.7 million (36%) - up 2 million, swing of 3.8% - gain 113 seats to 306 (47%)

Labour got 8.6 million (29%) - down 800,000, swing of -6.2% - lost 98 seats to 258 (39.7%)

Libs got 6.8 million (23%) - up 900,000, swing of 1% - lost 5 seats to 57 (8.8%)

More and more this system looks incredibly unfair - we have a national election, with televised leaders' debates and campaigns focused on the leaders, but yet we hold on to a flawed local system that is not reflective of the national vote (although in some ways this is the most reflective for years, as there's no majority)

This may sound like a cry for the Lib Dems (and quite frankly, why shouldn't it be?) but look at this:

in 2005 Labour got 9.5 million votes (35.3%)

Tories got 8.7 million (32.3%)

a difference of less than 800,000 votes - it gave Labour 158 more seats and a majority of 22 - in this election, Gordon Brown has got fewer votes than Michael Howard had, despite a vastly higher turnout, Cameron has beaten him by nearly three times the amount that Blair beat Howard by, and yet Labour only go down to 258 - despite this being their worst poll since 1983, and second worst since the first world war, meanwhile the Tories get a higher share of the vote than the last Labour majority, and indeed all their own majorities after Thatcher's initial win, and yet are still short of the winning post.

Clearly something is not right, Labour have blatantly been gerrymandering the boundaries to suit themselves and effectively cannot get anywhere near Hagues tiddly 166 seats - and yes, you guessed it, even he got more votes than Brown

I say this not as a disgruntled Tory (and nor do I believe that 36% should give you carte blanche in Parliament), but out of horror that we have got a system that is so blatantly biased that a margin that gave Blair his whopping majority in 2001 cannot even give Cameron a simple majority - it's insane, and frankly the Tories are fools for supporting it, the country has clearly moved on from local constituency voting, the television debates only confirmed that, and more importantly for the Tories it is now in their best interests to support reform

And seriously, a million extra votes, a 1% gain...five seats lost and a reduced share of seats

People are going to start getting pissed at this - the young in particular are becoming less tribal and are seeing a national party who they gave nearly seven million votes to get dicked around because they could only finish a strong second in a hundred safe seats - why the bloody hell should it be right that the biggest minority in a seat get full control, where a difference of 1 vote (yes, several seats were under a margin of 100) can see over half the population's vote wasted simply because of where the arbitrary geographical line is drawn around them? In the east of England, where Labour don't exist (save for some now-defeated parts of Norfolk and Basildon) the Lib Dems are the second party - they got just over half the vote the Tories did, otherwise known as a ratio of 1:2 - the Tories got 52 seats...the Libs got 4

It's an old argument, but I feel now the case is stronger than ever - we have a record vote for the Lib Dems (and a record piss-take), and it's now seriously affecting the Tories, electoral reform is more important than ever

...not that it means it will happen