Best Of

A few notable items popping up in the papers .

The government plans to change the law to constrain judges interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR .

The interpretation has been the subject of much controversy and is more of the issue than the actual article itself .

Why didn’t the Tory government attempt this ?

And news that any crime now will lead to a migrant being considered for deportation rather than previously the sentence had to be a year or more .

I’m a little concerned by Cooper’s suggestion that someone needs a degree to be eligible for a work visa. It’s the continued fetishisation of a specific qualification. Bill Gates, for example, does not have a degree.

That probably explains why Microsoft let him go.

As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/10/police-raid-london-quaker-meeting-house-very-worrying

This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:

Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.

There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.

Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.

As predicted, the police are enjoying the "conspiracy to cause a public nuisance" law. The difficulty here is not only could it prevent most protests from happening, but even discussion of one can lead to an arrest.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/10/police-raid-london-quaker-meeting-house-very-worrying

This important bit of context was buried on the middle of the article:

Youth Demand, which includes young veterans of the Just Stop Oil movement, had posted online it was planning to “shut down London” on a daily basis in April.

There's an interesting question about when discussion becomes conspiracy. For "political" acts, I think the government should tend to err on the side of inaction, but then if people actually commit public order offences, should actually prosecute and jail.

Because I don't like the idea of criminalizing kids sitting around plotting to overthrow capitalism. But I do want to punish them appropriately when they massively inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people and bring economic activity to a halt.

The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable amount of disruption was to be expected in a democracy. Was an active plan under discussion? What did it involve?

I suppose you can at least defend it on the basis that some protesters have caused a lot of damage. Arresting parents for criticising schools or the CPS charging someone for 'intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam harrassment, alarm or distress' seems much more dubious.

Should burning the Quran be illegal or what about setting fire to the Star of David? I wouldn't be comfortable with people doing it bu the CPS seems to want a blasphemy law.

I don't have an answer to this, because I neither support a blasphemy law, but nor do I think people should act in blasphemous ways. This next point may be silly, but here it is:

You can burn a Quran or a Star of David in private without consequence. That, SFAICS, is just a fact. So the person who does such a thing deliberately in public is going a step beyond that squalid but private act. Why? Can there be any reason except the desire to offend, provoke, incite, inform others just how much you hate and detest something precious to millions of decent people.

Put that way, I wouldn't like it being lawful. But I am uncomfortable banning it too.

Are you allowed to protest against socialism if you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn das kapital as part of the protest

Are you allowed to protest against fascism as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn mein kampf as part of the protest

Are you allowed to protest against Salman Rushdie as you see his book as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the satanic verses as part of the protest

Are you allowed to protest against christianity as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the bible as part of the protest

Are you allowed to protest against islam as you see it as a bad thing? If so are you allowed to burn the quran as part of the protest


If you don't answer the same to both parts of each question for all of them please explain why its different

I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.

Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.

So why would I?

The infighting made for good copy for the excess of lobby correspondents we have in this country and the politically engaged, including this site, lapped it up. Because it’s content. And the world lives for content.

We may like content, but does content lead to us being content?

We should put all the Conservatives in a Marquee. Then it would be a ConTent

Farage setting out his agenda… and nicking ‘we are the party of working people’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14696587/NIGEL-FARAGE-victory-Reform-era-government-Net-Zero-immigration.html

The party of working people who voted against more workers rights . Whose last manifesto meant huge cuts to public services . Reform are a one trick pony .

We've already seen Reform present different policies to different sets of voters. And remember a lot of people don't pay much attention to the news - it's very plausible that Reform can target voters with something that looks good to working class workers because the consequences of the full manifesto aren't made clear to people.

See as a prime example Trump last year...

The danger is it turns Trump like where Reform inclined voters start calling any criticisms fake news and become so delusional that Farage could threaten to cull the old and they still vote for him.

Fanatics will do as they will.

But a party needs more than fanatics to win, it also needs those who want some competence and moderation.

So it needs to display some competence and moderation, or at least more of it than the alternative parties do.

Trump waves hello.

Look at Trump's electoral record.

Its not impressive is it.

If the Dems had run a competent and moderate candidate last year they would have won.

Instead the stupid party offered Senile Joe, useless Harris and a platform of unrestricted immigration and unlimited wokery.

THey did run such a candidate, and they offered no such programme. Merely because you don't like HArris and Biden is no reason to invent stuff about them.

Trump claims otherwise but Trump is clearly extremely senile, as well as a known forger and liar.

The fact is he's won twice by acting in a way you say is impossible. That's a pretty shocking indictment of the US electoral system (and the courts, who should have locked the fat old traitor up) but he still won without anyone competent around him.

You're still in denial.

The Dems were in denial.

The Dems were neither moderate nor competent.

And so the Dems lost.

And one of the clearest illustrations of the incompetence of the Biden administration is that they didn't even bother taking legal action against Trump until it was too late.

It is not I who am in denial.

You do know that the reason convictions were not found earlier is because Trump and his allies kept obstructing the process? I mean, to put it at its simplest, the very first charges were brought against him on the 13th January 2021. How much sooner did you want them?

But his continuous use of obfuscation, withholding and bare-faced fraud, assisted by a number of corrupt judges, meant it was impossible to proceed faster. To put it at its simplest, he would have been convicted in spring 2024 for treason in Washington if the Supreme Court had not delayed the case for patently spurious reasons for five months.

As for 'neither moderate nor competent,' let's have some detail shall we? As David has pointed out, Biden ran a pretty efficient administration and Harris was part of it. The border issues were largely due to the refusal of Congress to pass laws on the subject - on Trump's orders. So how is that their fault?

The fact is that Trump won for many very sinister reasons, including manipulation of the media by a well-known lunatic, corruption on a grand scale and the failure of the courts to uphold the laws of the United States. Economic issues may have played a part but most of them were either spurious or have been made enormously worse by Trump. The failures of the Dems barely registerd.

I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.

Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.

So why would I?

The Conservatives’ pool of talent ran out, at some point in the early years of this century, and since then, they’ve been running on fumes.

They made believing in not just Brexit, but a damaging hard Brexit, a purity test, and everyone not foolish enough has left or was driven away

Poor quality candidates and MP’s considerably pre-date 2016.

Certainly so, and in all parties.

The Tories have a particular issue in having only 120 MPs to choose from, and a substantial share of those being either discredited by being in the last government, on defection watch, mad as a box of frogs, or all of the above.

The next Tory PM is not on the front bench at present, may not even be in parliament and possibly not yet born.

Next Tory PM in 2034

I'm in my early 60s. I have yet to be convinced that I will live long enough to see another Tory PM. A recovery from 2024 is more than a single generation event.

Nigel Farage? He would argue he is the embodiment of UK Conservatism.

I am not sure I would agree, but it's not my side of the fence so I don't fully understand what makes one a Conservative.

If he was on fire I wouldn't piss on him. Being a right wing bigot doesn't make someone a Conservative, at least not any kind of Conservative that I would ever want to be.

Given that your views on sentencing are some way to the left of Shabana Mahmoud's, I would suggest that very few Conservatives are of the type that you would want to be.

LOL. Last week 2 men I had prosecuted for being concerned in the supply got 5 years each. Another man, who had had an abusive relationship with his partner over several years and sexually assaulted her sister got 10 years.

I don't select the sentences, that is a matter for the judge, but I have no problem with any of these sentences. What I would have a problem with is an increased probability that anyone found guilty would go to prison because they are black. You, apparently, don't.

Farage setting out his agenda… and nicking ‘we are the party of working people’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14696587/NIGEL-FARAGE-victory-Reform-era-government-Net-Zero-immigration.html

The party of working people who voted against more workers rights . Whose last manifesto meant huge cuts to public services . Reform are a one trick pony .

We've already seen Reform present different policies to different sets of voters. And remember a lot of people don't pay much attention to the news - it's very plausible that Reform can target voters with something that looks good to working class workers because the consequences of the full manifesto aren't made clear to people.

See as a prime example Trump last year...

The danger is it turns Trump like where Reform inclined voters start calling any criticisms fake news and become so delusional that Farage could threaten to cull the old and they still vote for him.

Fanatics will do as they will.

But a party needs more than fanatics to win, it also needs those who want some competence and moderation.

So it needs to display some competence and moderation, or at least more of it than the alternative parties do.

Trump waves hello.

Look at Trump's electoral record.

Its not impressive is it.

If the Dems had run a competent and moderate candidate last year they would have won.

Instead the stupid party offered Senile Joe, useless Harris and a platform of unrestricted immigration and unlimited wokery.

THey did run such a candidate, and they offered no such programme. Merely because you don't like HArris and Biden is no reason to invent stuff about them.

Trump claims otherwise but Trump is clearly extremely senile, as well as a known forger and liar.

The fact is he's won twice by acting in a way you say is impossible. That's a pretty shocking indictment of the US electoral system (and the courts, who should have locked the fat old traitor up) but he still won without anyone competent around him.

Yep, the truth is that Biden was a very successful President who ran a very competent administration through difficult times. Sadly, he lost his marbles. Harris was a more than capable replacement, a good speaker with an excellent record of public service. She wiped the floor with Trump in their only debate. He ran away from a rematch.

And Trump still won.

It is frankly fantasy that a generic Democrat would somehow have won. To pretend that is the case simply fails to recognise the problems that democracy has in the age of social media (otherwise known as wall to wall lies). It fails to recognise the same gaps between working class people and middle class professionals that bedevil Labour. It fails to acknowledge that millions of Americans do not think that the system works for them and are willing to roll the dice. It pretends that this is a simple problem. It isn't.

I couldn't go out on the streets and knock-up for the Conservatives today because what I thought they stood for - competent government, fiscal balance, business, strong defence, effective on crime and justice, controlled borders, low taxes and a country built on strong families and communities - doesn't appear to be the case.

Instead they became a byword for self-indulgence, venality and incompetence and seemed to be heavily aroused by infighting.

So why would I?

The Conservatives’ pool of talent ran out, at some point in the early years of this century, and since then, they’ve been running on fumes.

I look at Hampshire Tory MPs like Sir George Young and James Arbuthnot who were around until the last 10 years and...

There's simply no-one who comes close now.

I suspect that Boris' purge had something to do with it. So, if he were to return the situation at and near the top would be worse, not better.

It did not help, but the only real first rater among the purged was Kenneth Clarke,

Gauke was a first rater. Among the others, Letwin and Stewart were both very interesting characters and Grieve was highly competent.