Would I vote for, or against

MPs are currently voting (actually, it just passed) on the electoral reform bill that will put forward a referendum on the AV system

I have a dilemma

Naturally I want to back reform, I want to rid us of the rotten boroughs and minority victories (2/3s of MPs do not have a majority)

I admit AV is a step in the right direction, majority verdicts are preferable in my view - and breaking down Labour's gerrymandered seats is a good thing

However, I have seen AV in action, in Australia - and I have two main worries

Firstly, if we adopt a modern, relatively 'fair' system, where it is harder to show blatant problems and inherent unfairness, as we can now, will we simply accept it? Reformers, for the most part, do not want this system, nor do the traditionalists - but if we pass this, I fear we may be stuck with it, as they are in Australia, where this relatively modern electoral system has little opposition and yet produces confusing results - it may well be that we are better off arguing with something far worse and waiting for something much better than taking what is effectively, a sticking plaster, right now

Secondly, as I mentioned - AV produces confusing results, while they may be more legitimate in theory, the weighting element adds a confusing layer of jargon to the electorate and encourages even more tactical voting, in Australia, parties can hand over preferences that aren't allocated, for example

As you can see with the argument over legitimacy between Abbott and Gillard down under, it's hard to see who has more votes, or is more preferred - and their two-party system is even more ingrained than ours, so AV doesn't seem to help dissenting voices, or provide better politicians

I don't want AV, and personally I think if were we to accept it it would badly damage the cause for reform

But then, if it's defeated....there's no public attitude for reform, is there?

The Tories have got this one wrapped up, I think - and I don't think they even know it, because a victory would both put the constituencies back in their favour, and set back proportional systems

methinks the wily Cameron may know that, even if the backbenchers don't

Newsflash: The Pope really does excrete in the woods

Surprisingly, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has said the taxpayers should pay for the Pope's visit

I'm shocked, truly...does he also believe Jesus was in fact the son of God?

What's even the point in asking his opinion...of course he bloody thinks the Pope should come here, he probably also thinks we should all join his church

While I agree on the point about state visits - this is not really a 'state' visit, he's the leader of a religion, he does not come representing the national interests of the Vatican as a country, but his own religious views

And while he may represent 1 in 5 people on the planet (a statistic Catholics love), it's more like 1 in 12 in the UK (or 8%), and probably far less in actuality, polls show a minority welcome the visit, most not caring about it but also not wanting to waste money on a visitor who can easily self-fund and provides no tangible benefit in coming

We cut national services and yet spend on this abuse-riddled organisation to self-promote?

The argument follows that he was invited - true, but following up on that whole democracy thing, where most of us don't want to pay, which democratically elected leader invited him?

That's right, Gordon Brown, in February last year - the same government who created a load of expensive new commitments just for electoral purposes forced their successors' hand once again, knowing full well they would not be the ones to welcome the old git

Would Blair, the elected leader, the man who avoided any ties to Catholicism til he left office, have invited the Pope to these shores for the first time in history? Unlikely

If Brown wants to meet the Pope maybe he, or the Labour party should fund the visit

The Bond retrospective - Number 14

With apologies to Frisky - I am sorry I haven't put the infamous one in yet - 6th from bottom is quite high for this next entry to a lot of people

But I have been making the decision while viewing all of the films, and while this one has detractors (and I'm putting it bottom 6) I simply felt a few less memorable films were less fun to watch

But finally, here it is

14. Moonraker

Drink numbs the pain

Roger Moore’s fourth outing is notoriously bad and it does virtually write its own Austin Powers movie, not only does it actually send Bond into space, but it has a full-on laser battle, and that’s before we even get onto the non-existent plot as we jump, seemingly randomly, from the US, to Venice, to Rio and the Amazon before we even get to outer space…it’s just a series of exotic locations with some rather dodgy action sequences. But that said, it is at least watchable – hell, if it wasn’t for the whole space segment it would be a reasonable outing, its problem is that it piles on the comedy and general Moore-style cheesiness far too thick and lacks any real coherence, but it’s not complete dross, and won’t turn you off completely, until the very end, and for that reason it’s not bottom, where some people would put it.

Pros:
Some nice one-liners (‘you missed…’)
Michael Lonsdale as the understated Drax
Miss Goodhead was one of the better innuendos

Cons:
Overly ridiculous – that bloody gondola in particular
Little to no plot
Bond doesn’t even fire his gun

1 vote for Guido

While I admit Guido's campaign against Hague's SpAd Christopher Myers, complete with a lot of speculation about sexuality, may not be the most important political issue of the day and he should be relaxing on holiday, he is ultimately, right

Now the boy has quit, Hague's crying about miscarriages and Iain Dale is a very angry homosexual

Firstly, I think Guido is bang on for questioning why an inexperienced personal friend was parachuted into a plum SpAd role over other, more qualified candidates, and the fact that they shared a room only serves to lend weight to the theory that his appointment is personal, not professional, regardless of whether there was anything going on or not

Secondly - if this was a 25 year old woman, would it be, as Guido says, heterophobic? It's perfectly legitimate to question the scenario, and in fact surely this is the way forward for homosexuality - to be seen as usual, if we expect a politician to be bonking his male assistant as much as his female one surely that's a good day for equality?

The Bond retrospective - Number 15

Time for Sean Connery to make an appearance

 
15. Diamonds are Forever

Women's ultimate weakness...water?

While some feel Bond neatly entered his camp period with the advent of Moore it was in fact Connery’s 1971 return that saw the series sink to silly in-jokes and self parody, many Connery fans seem to conveniently forget that the ageing Scotsman seemingly played this solely for the cash and put in a swaggering, lazy performance. Bond’s animosity with Blofeld, the man who killed his wife two years previously, is completely non-existent, and yet is actually referenced in the lacklustre opening. After that we crawl through a dull plot about diamond smuggling featuring one of the weakest Bond girls in Jill St John, and don’t even see Blofeld, whose ‘shocking’ appearance is about as shocking as French toast, until the very end, by which time you’re asleep. Along the way you have to endure the bizarre homosexual assassins known as Winn and Kidd, a camp moon-buggy chase (that’s the low point) and two female bodyguards who as Felix might say ‘kick ass’… but can’t swim. Overall there’s very little to entertain, the action is poor and unrealistic, the characters are unappealing and there’s next to no plot, the only memorable scene comes with the Mustang chase. It’s another of those ‘forgettable’ Bonds


Pros:
Mustang
Shirley Bassey

Cons:
One of the least interesting Bond girls…and she got a lot of screen time
Moon buggy with flailing arms