Best Of

The next Liberal leader of Canada will be announced tonight, Mark Carney the favourite over Freeland.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-pary-leadership-winner-1.7476359

Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trump-calls-freeland-a-whack-and-poilievre-not-a-maga-guy

https://thespectator.com/topic/spectator-interview-president-donald-trump-full-transcript/

A prime minister without a seat in parliament.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-leadership/article/does-canadas-next-prime-minister-need-to-be-a-member-of-parliament/

Although incredibly rare, it is possible to become prime minister without having a seat in the House of Commons. Out of Canada’s 23 prime ministers, just five have done so.

Incredibly rare? 5/23 is just under a quarter. Journalism these days…

The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine.
Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.

Trump has only been in office this year, though.
If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.

He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.

Absolutely.
Trump is a disaster for the US.

But I'm more concerned about our leaders avoiding being collateral damage.

FPT

The biggest takeaway for me from the four juries I sat on was that they varied enormously in quality. In fact I came away with the distinct view that if you were a guilty defendant, the stupider the jury, the better your chances of getting away with it.

One juror was so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. In the jury room he just nodded along with the prevailing sentiment which was that most of the jurors just wanted to get home and as a not guilty verdict was the quickest and easiest way of achieving this, he got off. The judge made it clear that he thought this was the wrong verdict, and i am sure he was right.

By contrast, in a much more serious case, it was clear that the entire court thought the defendant would get off, but it was his misfortune to have some very smart people on the jury, some of whom had picked up on things missed by the court. The discussion was detailed, rational and highly responsible. To this day I am certin the guilty verdict was correct, and the defendant was simply unlucky to have so many smart people ruling on his case.

The one serious contentious case with which I am deeply familiar is the A6 murder for which James Hanratty was hanged. There is little doubt that a material contributory factor in the guilty verdict was that the case, unusually, was held at Bedford rather than the Old Bailey. Bedford was close to the scene of the crime and feelings were running high at the time.

I am not saying these examples makes the jury system bad, and I certainly don't have any magic formula for improving it, but the nature of the jury and the way it is selected seems to me a neglected area of study. If we understood more about it, some of the miscarriages we hear of might be avoided.

I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.

In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.

Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.

It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.

From a post on Bluesky

"The United States has informed its NATO allies of its decision to cease participation in the planning of future military exercises in Europe.

It is expected to affect exercises that are still in the planning stages or in the conceptual phase.

US will shift focus to the Indo-Pacific region."

Once again, the speed with which this is moving is shocking. Trump at least learned 1 thing from his first administration.

NATO needs replaced now. Only when we know what the alternative is can we work out properly what we need to do.

It makes me pessimistic about my predictions already. This year is going to be far more unstable than I had realised.

I said a couple of days ago that we should stop pretending the US is acting as an ally. I’m becoming increasingly convinced it doesn’t do much of anything towards preventing Trump acting against us, and is very probably counterproductive.

There’s no good reason to openly call him an enemy (whether or not some of us might think that), but rather simply treat the US as a country for now acting only in what it (wrongly) sees as its own interests, which on several rather important matters are completely at odds with our interests.

Trump has no better nature to appeal to - but he does respect strength. Grovelling means you still get told to do what he wants.

FPT

The biggest takeaway for me from the four juries I sat on was that they varied enormously in quality. In fact I came away with the distinct view that if you were a guilty defendant, the stupider the jury, the better your chances of getting away with it.

One juror was so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. In the jury room he just nodded along with the prevailing sentiment which was that most of the jurors just wanted to get home and as a not guilty verdict was the quickest and easiest way of achieving this, he got off. The judge made it clear that he thought this was the wrong verdict, and i am sure he was right.

By contrast, in a much more serious case, it was clear that the entire court thought the defendant would get off, but it was his misfortune to have some very smart people on the jury, some of whom had picked up on things missed by the court. The discussion was detailed, rational and highly responsible. To this day I am certin the guilty verdict was correct, and the defendant was simply unlucky to have so many smart people ruling on his case.

The one serious contentious case with which I am deeply familiar is the A6 murder for which James Hanratty was hanged. There is little doubt that a material contributory factor in the guilty verdict was that the case, unusually, was held at Bedford rather than the Old Bailey. Bedford was close to the scene of the crime and feelings were running high at the time.

I am not saying these examples makes the jury system bad, and I certainly don't have any magic formula for improving it, but the nature of the jury and the way it is selected seems to me a neglected area of study. If we understood more about it, some of the miscarriages we hear of might be avoided.