Best Of

https://x.com/atrupar/status/2035730140953461069

’ The president doing this is crucial. I've seen the polling, but I really hope the American people will be with him because he's doing this to make the whole world safer" -- NATO Secretary Mark Rutte

What is Rutte's game? Is it to try and prevent Trump going full tonto and abolishing NATO?

Whatever it is, it's well outside of his brief, which he NATO policy.
He should not be speaking for European foreign policy outside of that.

I think he fancies himself as a 'Trump whisperer'. Or is just trying to stay personally relevant. Or is engaged in some attempted soft cop hard cop dynamics. Whatever, I wish he'd desist.

Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.

I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.

But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...

I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.

However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.

Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.

So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.

Also worth bearing in mind that although the true loon Ed Miliband has accelerated the retreat from the North Sea, it was the Tories who started this madness with their open ended windfall tax madness.

Indeed on a wider front this is Badenoch's problem. So many of the Labour policies she is now deriding and opposing were initially introduced by the Tories including when she was in Cabinet.

And the electorate rejected them. So you come back with a different offer.

It's not really a problem for Kemi. She wasn't running the previous Tory Government, and she wasn't fronting any of the Net Zero bits. Since becoming leader, she has been clear and on the record in opposing the current Net Zero plans, and wanting to drill in the North Sea. The Government's energy policy is in tatters, and this will be a feeding frenzy. Sir will find it very difficult to move Milliband on, but the longer he takes the worse it will be.

Increasing North Sea drilling would do nothing to help UK energy prices in this time of crisis. Prices are set on global markets and increased North Sea drilling would have little impact on global supply.

I just do not understand why those objecting to drilling in the North Sea cannot see just how many billions in tax it would yield to the treasury

It is economic vandalism not to exploit our own reserves to the full

We managed perfectly well in this country without a supreme court. What a silly idea to introduce one.

Britain has long had a Supreme Court - it was called the Law Lords, and they were bound up in the House of Lords.

You couldn't reform the House of Lords meaningfully without separating the Law Lords into a wholly separate body. But there was no need to call that separate body the Supreme Court, as a pathetic imitation of the US. Britain could have take inspiration from its past and called it the "Court of x Chamber" where x was inspired by where it would meet, or some other name with historical allusions. Supreme Court, indeed.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Is good poetry, but not, I would claim, an accurate reflection of reality. Names kinda matter. The Allusionist podcast had an interesting episode about how they chose their name and the importance of choosing the right name.

I support fairly extensive reform of British institutions, but I think we can do that reform in a way that retains a link with our past, rather than fulfilling some low-rent politician's desire to be starring in the West Wing.

Good point.

https://x.com/cleowatson88/status/2035641419168182439

Jokes aside, the PM's Chief of Staff having his phone nicked would have had much bigger implications at the time of the robbery. The importance of tech security/spying is made clear to spads all the time. Govt by WhatsApp is normal. Who has that phone now and what else was on it?

Oh, how sweet. She actually believes his phone was nicked

I don't think she does. She's saying if it were nicked, a far bigger fuss would have been made at the time, so where's the initial report of the theft and what was done?

Would be amusing if the commons committee asked for the crime number and police report of the theft.

We managed perfectly well in this country without a supreme court. What a silly idea to introduce one.

Britain has long had a Supreme Court - it was called the Law Lords, and they were bound up in the House of Lords.

You couldn't reform the House of Lords meaningfully without separating the Law Lords into a wholly separate body. But there was no need to call that separate body the Supreme Court, as a pathetic imitation of the US. Britain could have take inspiration from its past and called it the "Court of x Chamber" where x was inspired by where it would meet, or some other name with historical allusions. Supreme Court, indeed.

The Law Lords sat in parliament and their boss was the Lord Chancellor, whose boss was the PM. That gave them a vital link to politics and by extension a form of democratic accountability. They should not be a 'wholly separate body' because 'wholly separate bodies' are not accountable, which is when you get ideological capture and judicial overreach. The name was never the issue. And the desire to 'reform the House of Lords meaningfully' is itself a meaningless aim. Why reform something if it wrecks the constitutional ecosystem? That isn't reform, it's simple vandalism.

Brave to argue for democratic accountability and then, in the same paragraph, defend the House of Lords.

The legal bit. This article does not constitute advice as defined in the code of conduct and professional standards of the Royal Statistical Society and you are urged to consider other sources as well.

(In gambling terms : DYOR)

It seems a pretty good summary, though.
And in any even professional legal advice is not infrequently wrong.

An interesting question, now there is at least partial license to discriminate against trans individuals, is how broad are the protections against discrimination afforded to them, as trans individuals, by the Equality Act, as you mention in the header.

The big that confuses me is… if you are a male-presenting transman, you are not allowed to use the men’s toilets, but you’re also not allowed to use the women’s toilets?

We managed perfectly well in this country without a supreme court. What a silly idea to introduce one.

Britain has long had a Supreme Court - it was called the Law Lords, and they were bound up in the House of Lords.

You couldn't reform the House of Lords meaningfully without separating the Law Lords into a wholly separate body. But there was no need to call that separate body the Supreme Court, as a pathetic imitation of the US. Britain could have take inspiration from its past and called it the "Court of x Chamber" where x was inspired by where it would meet, or some other name with historical allusions. Supreme Court, indeed.

I don't think it needed reforming. Everything was working fine.

It had its drawbacks. Too little space and too congested a schedule to do an effective job. But that could have been resolved by changing the standing orders to allow them to sit separately from the House of Lords and in another building.

https://x.com/drneilhudson/status/2035044504177143851

A proposal has been submitted for 150 houses in #TheydonBois on #GreenBelt.
Green Belt protects the nature of our precious village.
I will continue to do everything I can working with community groups & residents to oppose this development & to stand up for our community.

And this is why the Tories are not yet ready for government. They’re still as NIMBY as ever.

All parties do this.

In a recent Guardian article an "environmental activist" in Lincolnshire didn't want to be identified. He was decrying local opposition to solar farms.

The reason he didn't want to be named - he is a Green candidate in the area, and has opposition to the solar farms in his platform

Most people accept, sometimes reluctantly, the need for new buildings.

They find it almost impossible to accept the idea of new buildings near them.

If only we had a neat acronym for that mindset.