Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
Why describe Hunt as 'a former Health Secretary?' Surely the Foreign Office trumps that?
Interesting choice of paper for Sunak (for it is clearly he) to leak to though. Maybe he's pitching himself to the Red Wall again?
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
It’s a real shame, because it had the potential to be very good.
It is *spectacularly* good. Casting, acting, script. Its a bit close to the bone for some hence the attacks it gets.
The Guardian criticised its "smug superiority".
Yes, the *Guardian*.
The Guardian's film reviewer only seems to like art house movies or stories of socialist solidarity starring Maxine Peak. They tore chunks off Ghostbusters Afterlife despite it being fabulous.
I tend to agree.
On the subject of Maxine Peake, we have just watched the Hillsborough series, Anne. Very powerful. Gut-wrenching performances from Peake and many others. Highly recommended.
Don't get me wrong - she is a fantastic actor. Its just that she does like doing righteous roles these days and the Guardian gives them 12 out of 10 and everything else 2.
She’s done really well for herself and can choose these worthy roles. Her new series on BBC 1 next week looks to be another worthy one. Although it looks good from the trailer. She’s come along way from her supporting role in An episode of Hetty Wainthrop as the girl at the chippie.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
As the Chancellor, Sunak can easily outflank Truss on the right simply by cutting a few taxes. Particularly as she may be popular among the membership but all the signs are the parliamentary party don't trust her a yard. Likewise Patel.
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
As the Chancellor, Sunak can easily outflank Truss on the right simply by cutting a few taxes. Particularly as she may be popular among the membership but all the signs are the parliamentary party don't trust her a yard. Likewise Patel.
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
Unlikely, Truss would just promise to cut taxes more, Patel to clamp down hard on border control.
The only time two moderates have contested the final round of the Tory leadership post Thatcher was 1990 when Major faced Heseltine but then of course Major was seen, mistakenly, by Thatcherites as Maggie's true heir. Tebbit has also said he sometimes regrets not standing in 1990 once Thatcher resigned. Otherwise the Eurosceptic right almost always gets a candidate in the final 2 eg Redwood, Hague, IDS, Davis, Leadsom, Johnson and of course Howard was given a coronation in 2003.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
For one horrible moment I thought that Jerry Hayes had been outed as the Secret Barrister!.
Edit; required reading for the Home Sec. And the Attorney General!
Well the article can be summarised as: there are many potential defences for criminal damage, as there are for all sorts of crime, and under trial by jury where the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt', it is quite possible that juries will acquit people who otherwise appear to be guilty.
The defences used in this case, as reported , appear to be absurd; but that is not going to stop the defence trying them out, as you would expect them to. An interesting legal question is whether they could alternatively be prosecuted under legislation that prohibits the vandalism of historic monuments. I doubt the same defences could apply. However, it would be for Bristol City Council, not the CPS, to initiate such action.
For one horrible moment I thought that Jerry Hayes had been outed as the Secret Barrister!.
Edit; required reading for the Home Sec. And the Attorney General!
And for the defendants and their fellow violent self righteous supporters, for the matter of that.
There is of course a long tradition in the UK of defendants who were perceived to have 'acted in a just cause' being found 'not guilty'. It's not unknown, I seem to recall, for trials to be moved well away from the site where the offence was committed in order to get a jury less sympathetic to the 'miscreants.' There was too, in more recent times the strange prosecution for tax fraud of Ken Dodd, which took place in Liverpool, in front of a jury of Liverpudlians.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Likely more the latter, though devomax might just be enough of a carrot for No to scrape home in any indyref2 too if that is the price of SNP support
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Misses the point, and goes in the wrong direction - hardly surprising from Brown.
It is the UK as a unit that needs to be reformed, not 'give the Scots this and see if it will make them happy' - because it won't. It's like buying a wife who's leaving you a new runabout and a mink coat. A temporary fix.
As I have said before, a new Council of the Isles should be formed, consisting of representation (via Heads of Gmnt) of the UK, England, Scotland, Wales, and NI. Big defence, finance, and foreign policy decisions would need to get majority assent from the COTI before passing. It would not originate policy - it would have House of Lords style powers. THAT would save the UK.
I think some Brexit supporters hoped Brexit was the final victory, but are realising they still need to convince ppl their pet projects are a good idea/popular/sensible/desirable etc & not just EU membership preventing them from happening https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1479942131062120454
Also the “the nation wants what I personally want” school of warning is very very tedious. Low-tax Singapore-on-Thames is entirely the preserve of wealthy right wingers who think they are a silent majority but are actually over represented in the media https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1479937893925859329
For one horrible moment I thought that Jerry Hayes had been outed as the Secret Barrister!.
Edit; required reading for the Home Sec. And the Attorney General!
And for the defendants and their fellow violent self righteous supporters, for the matter of that.
There is of course a long tradition in the UK of defendants who were perceived to have 'acted in a just cause' being found 'not guilty'. It's not unknown, I seem to recall, for trials to be moved well away from the site where the offence was committed in order to get a jury less sympathetic to the 'miscreants.' There was too, in more recent times the strange prosecution for tax fraud of Ken Dodd, which took place in Liverpool, in front of a jury of Liverpudlians.
Yes, although the gross incompetence of the prosecution barrister (whom Dodd ran rings round) may have had a bearing on his escape. I particularly loved Dodd's comment here:
'I couldn't complete my tax returns as my accountant had died.' Barrister (Brian Leveson): 'That is not important to us.' Dodd: 'Well, it was pretty important to him.'
It’s a real shame, because it had the potential to be very good.
It is *spectacularly* good. Casting, acting, script. Its a bit close to the bone for some hence the attacks it gets.
The Guardian criticised its "smug superiority".
Yes, the *Guardian*.
I thought it was cracking
We're planning to give it a try this evening. Interesting how divisive it seems to be.
I'm looking forward to Munich: Edge of War, out on Netflix in a couple of weeks. I really enjoyed the book, Robert Harris is a great writer, I hope they do it justice.
Yes, the Tory policy of appeasement in the late thirties only got its bad name later on. It remains an interesting counterfactual how things might have been had Germany and Italy been contained, and if Hitler had been deposed or killed in 1938.
Would the British and French empires have survived? What would the Soviet Union have looked like? Would Japan have occupied all of China?
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Likely more the latter, though devomax might just be enough of a carrot for No to scrape home in any indyref2 too if that is the price of SNP support
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Likely more the latter, though devomax might just be enough of a carrot for No to scrape home in any indyref2 too if that is the price of SNP support
Possibly, but it’s a risky calculation.
It is essentially what was given to Quebec by the Canadian government after the very narrow 51% no win in the second Quebec independence referendum in 1995. That largely settled the issue
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
It is probably Sturgeon's goal now, Salmond having formed Alba however is for full independence now
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
It’s a real shame, because it had the potential to be very good.
It is *spectacularly* good. Casting, acting, script. Its a bit close to the bone for some hence the attacks it gets.
The Guardian criticised its "smug superiority".
Yes, the *Guardian*.
I thought it was cracking
We're planning to give it a try this evening. Interesting how divisive it seems to be.
I'm looking forward to Munich: Edge of War, out on Netflix in a couple of weeks. I really enjoyed the book, Robert Harris is a great writer, I hope they do it justice.
Yes, the Tory policy of appeasement in the late thirties only got its bad name later on. It remains an interesting counterfactual how things might have been had Germany and Italy been contained, and if Hitler had been deposed or killed in 1938.
Would the British and French empires have survived? What would the Soviet Union have looked like? Would Japan have occupied all of China?
Very interesting counter-factuals. The ultimate responsibility for Hitler's accession to power was, AIUI, and I am only an amateur historian, the belief of the Prussian traditionalists that they could control him. I suspect that the Japanese might have got bogged down in trying to control China, again AIUI there was a lot of the country that they didn't control. Could we, should we have given physical, as opposed to moral support to the Ethiopians against the Italians?
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
Why describe Hunt as 'a former Health Secretary?' Surely the Foreign Office trumps that?
Interesting choice of paper for Sunak (for it is clearly he) to leak to though. Maybe he's pitching himself to the Red Wall again?
Sunak knows that to win the next election he needs (some of) the red wall seats - a number of "safe" Tory seats are very plausible Lib Dem and Labour gains for multiple reasons (reduced house ownership being an obvious one in Wycombe / Aylesbury).
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
It is yet more bollox lies. It is just same devolution as we have now, power still stays in Westminster. It will make Labour even more unelectable in Scotland if that is possible.
Mr. G, there's also the flipside that if you actually give Holyrood everything except Defence, Foreign and some Treasury functions but the English have nothing whatsoever that pressure comes from the other side.
The distinguished leaders of Westminster seem determined to not even consider an English Parliament, and far prefer the idea of slicing England into fiefdoms or pretending mayors are just as good.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Devomax would mean that the Scottish Government would have to own their decisions and disasters. It would no longer be possible to say when things go wrong - that's Westminster's Fault were we.....
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Opinium last night was C34 Lab 39 LD 11. I would therefore still expect a swing to Labour and Labour gains but a 5% deficit is par for the course for a government midterm in local elections, even Cameron's Tories were 7% behind Ed Miliband's Labour in the 2012 locals
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Devomax would mean that the Scottish Government would have to own their decisions and disasters. It would no longer be possible to say when things go wrong - that's Westminster's Fault were we.....
Didn't stop the Tories blaming the EU for every mistake they made for about nine years (with 13 years in opposition in the middle).
Patel has the potentially powerful promise of the reintroduction of capital punishment (or at least the promise of a referendum on, the reintroduction of capital punishment) for sex crimes against children, murder of police officers, terrorism and treason to pull out of her top drawer should the need arise. Red meat for the RedWall. The Channel 4 play from many years ago, "The Execution of Gary Glitter" could well become a populist reality.
This would serve further benefits in that we wouldn't have to worry about compensating miscarriages of justice, and that centrist woke liberals would decide the UK is no longer the place for them.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
I wonder if Reform/UKIP or whatever it's incarnation is will have an effect.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
He's still the last Labour leader to win a majority in Scotland. I personally think that offer sounds dubious at best, but nobody has made a successful career underestimating Gordon Brown.
I've watched a lot of asteroid disaster movies (and series like Salvation) and I thought Don't Look Up was a smart and funny twist on the tropes of the genre by having very few people take the threat seriously.
I think a whole bunch of people have sucked the fun out of the film by fighting battles over parallels with global warming.
But it is ironic that those who are saying, "Don't watch this movie!" are primarily of the climate change denial persuasion.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
Why describe Hunt as 'a former Health Secretary?' Surely the Foreign Office trumps that?
Interesting choice of paper for Sunak (for it is clearly he) to leak to though. Maybe he's pitching himself to the Red Wall again?
Sunak knows that to win the next election he needs (some of) the red wall seats - a number of "safe" Tory seats are very plausible Lib Dem and Labour gains for multiple reasons (reduced house ownership being an obvious one in Wycombe / Aylesbury).
Sunak I doubt would do any better than Boris in the redwall, maybe even worse.
However the Tories might have a chance of winning back a few seats Cameron won in 2015 they have since lost in London and the South under Sunak eg St Albans, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea etc while comfortably holding all their other southern seats
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
Why describe Hunt as 'a former Health Secretary?' Surely the Foreign Office trumps that?
Interesting choice of paper for Sunak (for it is clearly he) to leak to though. Maybe he's pitching himself to the Red Wall again?
Sunak knows that to win the next election he needs (some of) the red wall seats - a number of "safe" Tory seats are very plausible Lib Dem and Labour gains for multiple reasons (reduced house ownership being an obvious one in Wycombe / Aylesbury).
I think Hunt probably prefers "former Health Secretary", a role he held for six years, is now chairman of the relevant committee, and is more culturally relevant right now. Indeed, I'd forgotten he was ever Foreign Sec and I voted for him.
As to the story, surely a stitch up would require the top two MPs' choice not being Truss, and I cannot see that happening. MPs are not so easily played and can switch their votes between rounds if required.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
He's still the last Labour leader to win a majority in Scotland. I personally think that offer sounds dubious at best, but nobody has made a successful career underestimating Gordon Brown.
One false step; the deal with Tony Blair. Although I doubt very much whether he would have won as big in 1997, leading to a workable Ashdown/Blair deal in 2002.
I obviously agree that this jury decision is not a precedent and that the basis of their decision remains entirely a matter for speculation. There is therefore no basis for concluding that there is some loophole in the law.
Beyond that, however... The suggestion that a statue which has been in place for over 100 years is somehow constituting an "offence" is frankly absurd and I think that the jury should have been so advised. This is of course a different question as to whether the statue was appropriate, should have been removed, etc. The test for something being "indecent" has been very high since at least the Lady Chatterley case in the 1960s and rightly so.
The argument that the statue was not damaged is beyond absurd and the argument that its value, whether as an exhibit or otherwise, is irrelevant. If you paint your garage wall white and your neighbour paints it yellow because that matches some colour scheme in the village you don't get to argue that you have "improved" it. What you have done is unlawfully interfered with another person's property.
It’s a real shame, because it had the potential to be very good.
It is *spectacularly* good. Casting, acting, script. Its a bit close to the bone for some hence the attacks it gets.
The Guardian criticised its "smug superiority".
Yes, the *Guardian*.
The Guardian's film reviewer only seems to like art house movies or stories of socialist solidarity starring Maxine Peak. They tore chunks off Ghostbusters Afterlife despite it being fabulous.
"Fabulous" is pushing it. It was good fun, and I loved the way they made the special effects look like they were from 1987.
2/2 The argument that the jury has to weigh up the rights and wrongs of the rights of freedom of expression against the damage caused and determine whether it was proportionate is slightly more problematic. It might be used to deal with trespass, for example but as the secret Barrister acknowledges, these rights are not absolute and a State is entitled to rule that criminal damage is a crime without breaching the right of freedom of expression.
I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment. What seems to me to have happened in this case, however, is that a jury has been presented with a series of legal arguments which are matters for the judge, not for them. It is the job of the Judge to give directions to the jury on the law and the jury have to follow them, even if they disagree. The jury are there as masters of the facts and have to apply the law, as they are directed, to the facts as they find them. If I was looking for fault in this result I would be looking very carefully at the Judge's charge to the Jury and whether he simply allowed them to be bamboozled by legal arguments that he should have resolved. The key facts that the jury should have been directed to determine were:
1. Were the accused correctly identified as at least some of those responsible. I do not understand this to be disputed. 2. Was the crime libelled committed, that is was there in fact criminal damage to the statue? That would be a question of fact and the answer is self evident. They should have been directed that what happened to the statue was criminal damage. 3. Were the answers to 1 and 2 established beyond a reasonable doubt, discharging the onus on the Crown?
I am a big fan of the jury system and have rarely had a jury decision that I disagreed with, let alone could not see how they got there. For the system to work, however, the role of each part of the system has to be clear and operate effectively. That did not happen in this case but the fault, if there is any, more likely lies with the Judge rather than the jury.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Opinium last night was C34 Lab 39 LD 11. I would therefore still expect a swing to Labour and Labour gains but a 5% deficit is par for the course for a government midterm in local elections, even Cameron's Tories were 7% behind Ed Miliband's Labour in the 2012 locals
I've watched a lot of asteroid disaster movies (and series like Salvation) and I thought Don't Look Up was a smart and funny twist on the tropes of the genre by having very few people take the threat seriously.
I think a whole bunch of people have sucked the fun out of the film by fighting battles over parallels with global warming.
The main problem with the movie is that it is primarily about making the parallel with global warming. It is McKay who sucks the fun out of it by wanting to make it serious.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
He's still the last Labour leader to win a majority in Scotland. I personally think that offer sounds dubious at best, but nobody has made a successful career underestimating Gordon Brown.
I just cannot see how they could sell that offer and it would satisfy either side of the debate. Selling tax credits many years ago when he was riding high is one thing. Selling this to the Scots is another.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
He's still the last Labour leader to win a majority in Scotland. I personally think that offer sounds dubious at best, but nobody has made a successful career underestimating Gordon Brown.
One false step; the deal with Tony Blair. Although I doubt very much whether he would have won as big in 1997, leading to a workable Ashdown/Blair deal in 2002.
I don't think he would necessarily have won in 1994 either, as it happens. But if there was a deal, he should have made it a more formal one.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
I wonder if Reform/UKIP or whatever it's incarnation is will have an effect.
I wonder if they even have the money to stand many candidates. Polling will overstate smaller parties as they don’t stand in every seat.
Patel has the potentially powerful promise of the reintroduction of capital punishment (or at least the promise of a referendum on, the reintroduction of capital punishment) for sex crimes against children, murder of police officers, terrorism and treason to pull out of her top drawer should the need arise.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Opinium last night was C34 Lab 39 LD 11. I would therefore still expect a swing to Labour and Labour gains but a 5% deficit is par for the course for a government midterm in local elections, even Cameron's Tories were 7% behind Ed Miliband's Labour in the 2012 locals
What percentage do you think the LDs will get?
The LDs will likely get a higher percentage than they do nationally as they normally do in locals. Probably about the same as the 16% they got in 2018.
Even though I would expect some Tory to Labour swing in the seats up this year since 2018, I would expect little Tory-LD swing therefore, especially as most of the councils in Home Counties Remain areas of Surrey and Oxfordshire the LDs would hope to do well in are not up in May
The Conservatives will undoubtedly make losses compared to 2018 given the current polls but will also likely still do better than in 2019 where the voteshare for May's Tories fell below 30% and the Tories lost over 1,000 councillors.
Remember too most of the seats up in are Labour territory with all of the London and Welsh councils up and most of the big cities but only a minority of councils elsewhere in England. So on that basis if the Tories manage to hold a few key London councils like Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea without too heavy losses elsewhere, made easier by the fact Labour already hold the majority of councils up this year (as do the SNP in the Scottish councils up) that could be spun as a reasonable result. See too 1990 where despite Kinnock's Labour leading Thatcher's Tories by a big 11% margin in the popular vote for that year's locals and despite the Tories losing over 200 councillors, Kenneth Baker spun the results as better than expected for the blues as they held Westminster and Wandsworth
Lovely to see Conservative central office digging back 32 years in search of a precedent.
Interesting stats in The Times, overall NHS England bed occupancy this year is down on 2019/20. That's including the 16k in hospital with COVID. And there's still 10k fewer in hospital than at the same point on time on 2020 before the pandemic started.
It's another bit of evidence that the crisis is manufactured by the government continuing to insist on 7 days isolation and testing for contacts. Time to end it for everyone except those with more than mild symptoms.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Opinium last night was C34 Lab 39 LD 11. I would therefore still expect a swing to Labour and Labour gains but a 5% deficit is par for the course for a government midterm in local elections, even Cameron's Tories were 7% behind Ed Miliband's Labour in the 2012 locals
What percentage do you think the LDs will get?
Good morning
On May's elections I expect the lib dems to have a stellar performance, labour to disappoint and the conservatives to have a very poor night
There is a lot of talk of lib dem/ labour tactical voting but do not rule out conservatives voting tactically for lib dems in labour seats
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
He's still the last Labour leader to win a majority in Scotland. I personally think that offer sounds dubious at best, but nobody has made a successful career underestimating Gordon Brown.
I just cannot see how they could sell that offer and it would satisfy either side of the debate. Selling tax credits many years ago when he was riding high is one thing. Selling this to the Scots is another.
It simply repeats the mistakes of Donald Dewar who was convinced that devolution would kill the claim for independence stone dead. Instead, we ended up with a Parliament, and subsequently a government, that seeks to undermine the commonality of the UK in its structures, its policies and its governances. The epic chaos and confusion shown by the different Covid regulations has been a classic example of that.
Over time such policies indicate that we have less and less in common with rUK so the argument for full independence gets stronger, not weaker. If we need to play with the devolution settlement yet again I think we should be focussing on what is genuinely local and defending what is national, not more of this same doomed path.
London will be fascinating - there are one or two counter-intuitive trends which may yet ruin the planned narrative for the elections.
I don't think the Conservatives will do that badly - the doom of the London Conservatives has been prophesied on many occasions. This time I see a mixed bag - it's quite possible Labour will regain Wandsworth and perhaps Barnet and it'll be interesting to see how Hillingdon votes but in some of the inner London Labour strongholds I think we could see some surprisingly strong Conservative performances which may not translate into many seats.
I also think the Conservatives have some serious prospects of ending LD rule in Sutton and Kingston.
Labour will hope to gain Wandsworth and Barnet and make progress in Hillingdon but most of their fortresses are impregnable though I think there will be odd losses to Conservatives, Greens and LDs.
Havering is another borough where any Conservative losses might mean a change of administration.
As said, the LDs may be in trouble in Sutton and Kingston but will hope to survive there and start re-building in the rest of the capital.
The Greens have only 11 Councillors in the capital - they will be looking to build on that and possibly where they are challenging Labour in inner London might be their best chance of progress.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
As the Chancellor, Sunak can easily outflank Truss on the right simply by cutting a few taxes. Particularly as she may be popular among the membership but all the signs are the parliamentary party don't trust her a yard. Likewise Patel.
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
Unlikely, Truss would just promise to cut taxes more, Patel to clamp down hard on border control.
The only time two moderates have contested the final round of the Tory leadership post Thatcher was 1990 when Major faced Heseltine but then of course Major was seen, mistakenly, by Thatcherites as Maggie's true heir. Tebbit has also said he sometimes regrets not standing in 1990 once Thatcher resigned. Otherwise the Eurosceptic right almost always gets a candidate in the final 2 eg Redwood, Hague, IDS, Davis, Leadsom, Johnson and of course Howard was given a coronation in 2003.
Patel, though, barely gets into positive approval on Conservative member surveys.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Opinium last night was C34 Lab 39 LD 11. I would therefore still expect a swing to Labour and Labour gains but a 5% deficit is par for the course for a government midterm in local elections, even Cameron's Tories were 7% behind Ed Miliband's Labour in the 2012 locals
What percentage do you think the LDs will get?
Good morning
On May's elections I expect the lib dems to have a stellar performance, labour to disappoint and the conservatives to have a very poor night
There is a lot of talk of lib dem/ labour tactical voting but do not rule out conservatives voting tactically for lib dems in labour seats
You forget most of the seats up are in Labour areas, London, Wales, the big cities etc, most Southern councils the LDs would hope to target are not up in May
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Not again surely, Brown said that was what was on offer 2014, how can he sell that rubbish again. These people really are thick and it is no wonder they cannot even beat a crooked clown. Starmer bring Brown out of his crypt shows just how devoid of ideas he is, pathetic.
Don't underestimate his powers as a salesman. He sold tax credits very successfully for 15 years despite them being an ultra-right wing policy that proved a disaster in practice.
But that was when he’d abolished boom and bust and could do no wrong, his stock slumped post 2010. Irrespective of him ‘saving the world’
He's still the last Labour leader to win a majority in Scotland. I personally think that offer sounds dubious at best, but nobody has made a successful career underestimating Gordon Brown.
I just cannot see how they could sell that offer and it would satisfy either side of the debate. Selling tax credits many years ago when he was riding high is one thing. Selling this to the Scots is another.
I personally think actually it's not the Scots that would be the issue with those proposals - it would be the English. How could you realistically argue we were still in a 'union' where Scotland got to do whatever the hell it liked and the English still had to take the votes of Scottish MPs on these matters? That would be especially problematic if the SNP held the balance of power. I don't think the Welsh would be thrilled either. And as for Northern Ireland...
A far more sensible solution would be to propose a Royal Commission to draw up within two years a full, new constitutional settlement for the UK as a whole based on devolution all round (ironically first proposed by Joseph Chamberlain in the 1880s, but that's another story). That would have the advantage that there would be no need to grant a second Sindy ref before it reported, but any alterations it made would probably be an improvement and weaken the independence movement. (It might also by way of a bonus finally resolve the long running and still serious problem of the House of Lords.)
By driving it through piecemeal they're repeating Blair's mistake of seeing this as a political issue in Scotland (and Wales/NI to a lesser extent) not as an existential constitutional question.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
It is both a step towards full independence and a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer government.
It won’t be long before the SLDs and SCons also allow their parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis. They need to prepare for the post-independence landscape.
London will be fascinating - there are one or two counter-intuitive trends which may yet ruin the planned narrative for the elections.
I don't think the Conservatives will do that badly - the doom of the London Conservatives has been prophesied on many occasions. This time I see a mixed bag - it's quite possible Labour will regain Wandsworth and perhaps Barnet and it'll be interesting to see how Hillingdon votes but in some of the inner London Labour strongholds I think we could see some surprisingly strong Conservative performances which may not translate into many seats.
I also think the Conservatives have some serious prospects of ending LD rule in Sutton and Kingston.
Labour will hope to gain Wandsworth and Barnet and make progress in Hillingdon but most of their fortresses are impregnable though I think there will be odd losses to Conservatives, Greens and LDs.
Havering is another borough where any Conservative losses might mean a change of administration.
As said, the LDs may be in trouble in Sutton and Kingston but will hope to survive there and start re-building in the rest of the capital.
The Greens have only 11 Councillors in the capital - they will be looking to build on that and possibly where they are challenging Labour in inner London might be their best chance of progress.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
As the Chancellor, Sunak can easily outflank Truss on the right simply by cutting a few taxes. Particularly as she may be popular among the membership but all the signs are the parliamentary party don't trust her a yard. Likewise Patel.
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
Unlikely, Truss would just promise to cut taxes more, Patel to clamp down hard on border control.
The only time two moderates have contested the final round of the Tory leadership post Thatcher was 1990 when Major faced Heseltine but then of course Major was seen, mistakenly, by Thatcherites as Maggie's true heir. Tebbit has also said he sometimes regrets not standing in 1990 once Thatcher resigned. Otherwise the Eurosceptic right almost always gets a candidate in the final 2 eg Redwood, Hague, IDS, Davis, Leadsom, Johnson and of course Howard was given a coronation in 2003.
Patel, though, barely gets into positive approval on Conservative member surveys.
Hence she is hardening her line on immigration, including in regard to any Indian trade deal to go even harder line than Truss on that
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
2/2 The argument that the jury has to weigh up the rights and wrongs of the rights of freedom of expression against the damage caused and determine whether it was proportionate is slightly more problematic. It might be used to deal with trespass, for example but as the secret Barrister acknowledges, these rights are not absolute and a State is entitled to rule that criminal damage is a crime without breaching the right of freedom of expression.
I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment. What seems to me to have happened in this case, however, is that a jury has been presented with a series of legal arguments which are matters for the judge, not for them. It is the job of the Judge to give directions to the jury on the law and the jury have to follow them, even if they disagree. The jury are there as masters of the facts and have to apply the law, as they are directed, to the facts as they find them. If I was looking for fault in this result I would be looking very carefully at the Judge's charge to the Jury and whether he simply allowed them to be bamboozled by legal arguments that he should have resolved. The key facts that the jury should have been directed to determine were:
1. Were the accused correctly identified as at least some of those responsible. I do not understand this to be disputed. 2. Was the crime libelled committed, that is was there in fact criminal damage to the statue? That would be a question of fact and the answer is self evident. They should have been directed that what happened to the statue was criminal damage. 3. Were the answers to 1 and 2 established beyond a reasonable doubt, discharging the onus on the Crown?
I am a big fan of the jury system and have rarely had a jury decision that I disagreed with, let alone could not see how they got there. For the system to work, however, the role of each part of the system has to be clear and operate effectively. That did not happen in this case but the fault, if there is any, more likely lies with the Judge rather than the jury.
I would suggest reading your second and last paragraphs.
If you did you will see that you are arguing that the Judge should have silenced a set of arguments that he decided not to silence. And you then criticising him even though you previously said "I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment."
You can't have it both ways - but hey you did that last week when you commented on the Prince Andrew case while missing the fundamental sub-clause that said the clause you got upset about wasn't relevant
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
Patel has the potentially powerful promise of the reintroduction of capital punishment (or at least the promise of a referendum on, the reintroduction of capital punishment) for sex crimes against children, murder of police officers, terrorism and treason to pull out of her top drawer should the need arise.
You forgot "toppling statues"...
I was being deadly serious and I am convinced post Brexit this is the way forward for populist politicians and it will happen this decade
Convictions for killing statues of patriots would warrant a significant custodial sentence. But first we have to convict them. A star chamber chaired by PM Patel instead of trial by jury would do the trick.
London will be fascinating - there are one or two counter-intuitive trends which may yet ruin the planned narrative for the elections.
I don't think the Conservatives will do that badly - the doom of the London Conservatives has been prophesied on many occasions. This time I see a mixed bag - it's quite possible Labour will regain Wandsworth and perhaps Barnet and it'll be interesting to see how Hillingdon votes but in some of the inner London Labour strongholds I think we could see some surprisingly strong Conservative performances which may not translate into many seats.
I also think the Conservatives have some serious prospects of ending LD rule in Sutton and Kingston.
Labour will hope to gain Wandsworth and Barnet and make progress in Hillingdon but most of their fortresses are impregnable though I think there will be odd losses to Conservatives, Greens and LDs.
Havering is another borough where any Conservative losses might mean a change of administration.
As said, the LDs may be in trouble in Sutton and Kingston but will hope to survive there and start re-building in the rest of the capital.
The Greens have only 11 Councillors in the capital - they will be looking to build on that and possibly where they are challenging Labour in inner London might be their best chance of progress.
Havering is already NOC because of a big number of Residents' Association councillors.
The only safe Conservative councils I think are Kensington and Chelsea, Bexley, Bromley and probably Westminster. Wandsworth and Barnet (post Corbyn) and even Hillingdon as you say could go Labour. I doubt the LDs will lose any councils
Patel has the potentially powerful promise of the reintroduction of capital punishment (or at least the promise of a referendum on, the reintroduction of capital punishment) for sex crimes against children, murder of police officers, terrorism and treason to pull out of her top drawer should the need arise.
You forgot "toppling statues"...
I was being deadly serious and I am convinced post Brexit this is the way forward for populist politicians and it will happen this decade
Convictions for killing statues of patriots would warrant a significant custodial sentence. But first we have to convict them. A star chamber chaired by PM Patel instead of trial by jury would do the trick.
God can you imagine the disgusting indignity of a referendum on this? Let's take the money we spend on kiddie-killing pervs and spend it on the NHS.
If you have two poles (no Scottish devolution and Scottish independence) and you keep on walking away from the former and towards the latter it's no surprise if support for the latter rises as the gap between that and current reality diminishes.
When you embed a new political dividing line it's to be expected that an institutionally imposed division increases, er, division. Increase the disparity and watch that increase in turn.
And it does affect other things too.
I was surprised in 2017 when my mother was very annoyed by a winter fuel allowance (think that was the issue) difference in the Conservative manifesto for Scotland. Pleased she was not.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
That would require vision, courage and energy so not really a feasible option for the tories.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
As the Chancellor, Sunak can easily outflank Truss on the right simply by cutting a few taxes. Particularly as she may be popular among the membership but all the signs are the parliamentary party don't trust her a yard. Likewise Patel.
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
Unlikely, Truss would just promise to cut taxes more, Patel to clamp down hard on border control.
The only time two moderates have contested the final round of the Tory leadership post Thatcher was 1990 when Major faced Heseltine but then of course Major was seen, mistakenly, by Thatcherites as Maggie's true heir. Tebbit has also said he sometimes regrets not standing in 1990 once Thatcher resigned. Otherwise the Eurosceptic right almost always gets a candidate in the final 2 eg Redwood, Hague, IDS, Davis, Leadsom, Johnson and of course Howard was given a coronation in 2003.
Patel, though, barely gets into positive approval on Conservative member surveys.
Hence she is hardening her line on immigration, including in regard to any Indian trade deal to go even harder line than Truss on that
Patel is an unmitigated disaster zone and I have no idea why you are such a fan
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Likely more the latter, though devomax might just be enough of a carrot for No to scrape home in any indyref2 too if that is the price of SNP support
But is the Union really worth saving for Tories if Scotland is pretty much gone anyway? You get to keep Faslane and the UN Security Council seat, but in exchange Scotland is just going to continue irritating the hell out of you. Better to come to a pleasant settlement.
Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have allegedly agreed a "non-aggression pact", in an attempt to push Liz Truss out of a future Conservative Party leadership race.
Headline in one tweet; source in the next; isn't that what got the last lot banned?
Sunak and Hunt allies 'stitch up deal' to squeeze Liz Truss out of Tory leadership race Tory insiders say campaign teams for the Chancellor and former Health Secretary have agreed a “non-aggression pact” in their bid to succeed Boris Johnson as PM https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-hunt-allies-stitch-up-25891961
Would that be "Tory insiders" on Team Truss?
The report however says Sunak and Hunt are trying to stitch up a deal amongst their campaign teams of MP supporters to ensure they are the final 2 in the runoff, eliminating Truss from the membership vote. Hunt would then have his pick of a Cabinet post under a PM Sunak and Sunak would stay Chancellor under a PM Hunt.
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
As the Chancellor, Sunak can easily outflank Truss on the right simply by cutting a few taxes. Particularly as she may be popular among the membership but all the signs are the parliamentary party don't trust her a yard. Likewise Patel.
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
Unlikely, Truss would just promise to cut taxes more, Patel to clamp down hard on border control.
The only time two moderates have contested the final round of the Tory leadership post Thatcher was 1990 when Major faced Heseltine but then of course Major was seen, mistakenly, by Thatcherites as Maggie's true heir. Tebbit has also said he sometimes regrets not standing in 1990 once Thatcher resigned. Otherwise the Eurosceptic right almost always gets a candidate in the final 2 eg Redwood, Hague, IDS, Davis, Leadsom, Johnson and of course Howard was given a coronation in 2003.
Patel, though, barely gets into positive approval on Conservative member surveys.
Hence she is hardening her line on immigration, including in regard to any Indian trade deal to go even harder line than Truss on that
Patel is an unmitigated disaster zone and I have no idea why you are such a fan
Two clueless idiots - unable to see the flaw in the other...
Not that Patel has a fixable problem but I do think she is making things worse than they could otherwise be.
2/2 The argument that the jury has to weigh up the rights and wrongs of the rights of freedom of expression against the damage caused and determine whether it was proportionate is slightly more problematic. It might be used to deal with trespass, for example but as the secret Barrister acknowledges, these rights are not absolute and a State is entitled to rule that criminal damage is a crime without breaching the right of freedom of expression.
I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment. What seems to me to have happened in this case, however, is that a jury has been presented with a series of legal arguments which are matters for the judge, not for them. It is the job of the Judge to give directions to the jury on the law and the jury have to follow them, even if they disagree. The jury are there as masters of the facts and have to apply the law, as they are directed, to the facts as they find them. If I was looking for fault in this result I would be looking very carefully at the Judge's charge to the Jury and whether he simply allowed them to be bamboozled by legal arguments that he should have resolved. The key facts that the jury should have been directed to determine were:
1. Were the accused correctly identified as at least some of those responsible. I do not understand this to be disputed. 2. Was the crime libelled committed, that is was there in fact criminal damage to the statue? That would be a question of fact and the answer is self evident. They should have been directed that what happened to the statue was criminal damage. 3. Were the answers to 1 and 2 established beyond a reasonable doubt, discharging the onus on the Crown?
I am a big fan of the jury system and have rarely had a jury decision that I disagreed with, let alone could not see how they got there. For the system to work, however, the role of each part of the system has to be clear and operate effectively. That did not happen in this case but the fault, if there is any, more likely lies with the Judge rather than the jury.
I would suggest reading your second and last paragraphs.
If you did you will see that you are arguing that the Judge should have silenced a set of arguments that he decided not to silence. And you then criticising him even though you previously said "I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment."
You can't have it both ways - but hey you did that last week when you commented on the Prince Andrew case while missing the fundamental sub-clause that said the clause you got upset about wasn't relevant
I am not having it both ways. I am expressing a view, based on experience, of what is likely to have gone wrong in this case.
On the Andrew case I do not think you are being fair. When I saw the whole agreement it was clear that the definition of "second parties" did not include Andrew. That made it possible that "any other party who could have been a defendant" was capable of being construed narrowly which gives the claimant some sort of an argument although I am still of the view that that is not the natural reading of the words and that Andrew could have been a defendant and therefore falls within the exclusion. We shall see what the judge concludes.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
That would require vision, courage and energy so not really a feasible option for the tories.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
That would require vision, courage and energy so not really a feasible option for the tories.
It is the correct thing to do and anything else will only be constant turmoil
London will be fascinating - there are one or two counter-intuitive trends which may yet ruin the planned narrative for the elections.
I don't think the Conservatives will do that badly - the doom of the London Conservatives has been prophesied on many occasions. This time I see a mixed bag - it's quite possible Labour will regain Wandsworth and perhaps Barnet and it'll be interesting to see how Hillingdon votes but in some of the inner London Labour strongholds I think we could see some surprisingly strong Conservative performances which may not translate into many seats.
I also think the Conservatives have some serious prospects of ending LD rule in Sutton and Kingston.
Labour will hope to gain Wandsworth and Barnet and make progress in Hillingdon but most of their fortresses are impregnable though I think there will be odd losses to Conservatives, Greens and LDs.
Havering is another borough where any Conservative losses might mean a change of administration.
As said, the LDs may be in trouble in Sutton and Kingston but will hope to survive there and start re-building in the rest of the capital.
The Greens have only 11 Councillors in the capital - they will be looking to build on that and possibly where they are challenging Labour in inner London might be their best chance of progress.
Why might the LibDems be in trouble in Kingston? Has there been factional in-fighting/local controversies?
Here in Surrey, Woking could be taken by the LibDems (the Cons lead a minority administration), Mole Valley should see a comfortable hold but I don't see any breakthroughs for them in Elmbridge or the other councils that elect in thirds. Next year will be the biggie with the all-outs.
On topic, I suspect that the 35 C 35 Lab 16 LD we saw in 2018 might not be too far off what we see in 2022, consequently with not a huge shift in seats. Which won't be too bad a result for a mid-term Government - and certainly not a result that will put any pressure on Boris.
Opinium last night was C34 Lab 39 LD 11. I would therefore still expect a swing to Labour and Labour gains but a 5% deficit is par for the course for a government midterm in local elections, even Cameron's Tories were 7% behind Ed Miliband's Labour in the 2012 locals
What percentage do you think the LDs will get?
Good morning
On May's elections I expect the lib dems to have a stellar performance, labour to disappoint and the conservatives to have a very poor night
There is a lot of talk of lib dem/ labour tactical voting but do not rule out conservatives voting tactically for lib dems in labour seats
I hope you are right re the LDs but I expect HYUFD is nearer the mark.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
Obviously indyref2 will not be granted as long as the Tories remain in power.
Labour likely would grant it if it needed SNP confidence and supply, with devomax it seems as their carrot to Scots to vote No
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Likely more the latter, though devomax might just be enough of a carrot for No to scrape home in any indyref2 too if that is the price of SNP support
But is the Union really worth saving for Tories if Scotland is pretty much gone anyway? You get to keep Faslane and the UN Security Council seat, but in exchange Scotland is just going to continue irritating the hell out of you. Better to come to a pleasant settlement.
You seem to think independence is nailed on and I would suggest it is far from so and I expect indyref2 to be won for the union
Mr. G, there's also the flipside that if you actually give Holyrood everything except Defence, Foreign and some Treasury functions but the English have nothing whatsoever that pressure comes from the other side.
The distinguished leaders of Westminster seem determined to not even consider an English Parliament, and far prefer the idea of slicing England into fiefdoms or pretending mayors are just as good.
London will be fascinating - there are one or two counter-intuitive trends which may yet ruin the planned narrative for the elections.
I don't think the Conservatives will do that badly - the doom of the London Conservatives has been prophesied on many occasions. This time I see a mixed bag - it's quite possible Labour will regain Wandsworth and perhaps Barnet and it'll be interesting to see how Hillingdon votes but in some of the inner London Labour strongholds I think we could see some surprisingly strong Conservative performances which may not translate into many seats.
I also think the Conservatives have some serious prospects of ending LD rule in Sutton and Kingston.
Labour will hope to gain Wandsworth and Barnet and make progress in Hillingdon but most of their fortresses are impregnable though I think there will be odd losses to Conservatives, Greens and LDs.
Havering is another borough where any Conservative losses might mean a change of administration.
As said, the LDs may be in trouble in Sutton and Kingston but will hope to survive there and start re-building in the rest of the capital.
The Greens have only 11 Councillors in the capital - they will be looking to build on that and possibly where they are challenging Labour in inner London might be their best chance of progress.
Why might the LibDems be in trouble in Kingston? Has there been factional in-fighting/local controversies?
Here in Surrey, Woking could be taken by the LibDems (the Cons lead a minority administration), Mole Valley should see a comfortable hold but I don't see any breakthroughs for them in Elmbridge or the other councils that elect in thirds. Next year will be the biggie with the all-outs.
On current polls Esher and Walton would elect a LD MP, the LDs will certainly be targeting Elmbridge hard. Though as you say next year there bigger chance with the all outs again last up in 2019 however the LDs made big gains then anyway so might be near their ceiling on those councils, councils from Chelmsford to Guildford to South Oxfordshire saw the LDs take control from the Tories in 2019
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
That would require vision, courage and energy so not really a feasible option for the tories.
Or the SNP
The SNP are not independence, they are just a political party.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
Obviously indyref2 will not be granted as long as the Tories remain in power.
Labour likely would grant it if it needed SNP confidence and supply, with devomax it seems as their carrot to Scots to vote No
It was the carrot offered before. If you dangle a carrot in front of a donkey* and withdraw it, and then dangle it again, the donkey is not going to be fooled twice.
The order would have to be enact devomax *then* hold the referendum.
But as I say, that would be a serious error anyway because it mistakes a major issue of governance for one of political strategy.
*The only thing donkeys and Scots have in common is a love of thistles.
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
Obviously indyref2 will not be granted as long as the Tories remain in power.
Labour likely would grant it if it needed SNP confidence and supply, with devomax it seems as their carrot to Scots to vote No
You cannot hold Scotland ransom just creating further division and indyref2 is the correct way forward and win it
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Word was, back in the day, devomax was Salmond's goal but there's been a lot of water under the Forth Bridge since then.
I don't think that there is any meaningful devomax option, because the 'max' will keep getting pushed. You could have home rule. But it is going to cause problems if Scotland wants to rejoin the EU. Really the choice should be between Independence, and scaling back devolution whilst remaining in the UK.
No, because on that choice Scotland would likely choose independence. Devomax is the best choice to keep a narrow Scottish majority for the Union
The best thing to do is grant indyref2 and go out and win it for the union
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Devomax would mean that the Scottish Government would have to own their decisions and disasters. It would no longer be possible to say when things go wrong - that's Westminster's Fault were we.....
It will still be Westminster's fault. It was Westminster's fault for decades in Ireland, even after they'd become an independent Republic. And for Scotland Holyrood wouldn't have the power to make trade deals, or re-enter the single market, so there's a great big peg onto which, "It's Westminster's Fault" can be hung, regardless of the truth of the situation.
2/2 The argument that the jury has to weigh up the rights and wrongs of the rights of freedom of expression against the damage caused and determine whether it was proportionate is slightly more problematic. It might be used to deal with trespass, for example but as the secret Barrister acknowledges, these rights are not absolute and a State is entitled to rule that criminal damage is a crime without breaching the right of freedom of expression.
I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment. What seems to me to have happened in this case, however, is that a jury has been presented with a series of legal arguments which are matters for the judge, not for them. It is the job of the Judge to give directions to the jury on the law and the jury have to follow them, even if they disagree. The jury are there as masters of the facts and have to apply the law, as they are directed, to the facts as they find them. If I was looking for fault in this result I would be looking very carefully at the Judge's charge to the Jury and whether he simply allowed them to be bamboozled by legal arguments that he should have resolved. The key facts that the jury should have been directed to determine were:
1. Were the accused correctly identified as at least some of those responsible. I do not understand this to be disputed. 2. Was the crime libelled committed, that is was there in fact criminal damage to the statue? That would be a question of fact and the answer is self evident. They should have been directed that what happened to the statue was criminal damage. 3. Were the answers to 1 and 2 established beyond a reasonable doubt, discharging the onus on the Crown?
I am a big fan of the jury system and have rarely had a jury decision that I disagreed with, let alone could not see how they got there. For the system to work, however, the role of each part of the system has to be clear and operate effectively. That did not happen in this case but the fault, if there is any, more likely lies with the Judge rather than the jury.
Isn't the most likely jury room scenario a discussion like this
"We can acquit for any reason we like, right?" "Well... Yes... I guess..." "Well I don't think they deserve 10 years in jail for defacing a stupid statue of a slaver" "Me too" "Also I have work to get back to" "Not guilty it is then"
Labour to recommend devomax when Gordon Brown's report for Starmer concludes, with responsibility for policy in most areas except defence and foreign policy being given to Holyrood if Labour wins the next general election. Labour could also allow its parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis
This is either just a step towards full independence or a cynical attempt to buy SNP support for a minority Starmer govt.
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
Likely more the latter, though devomax might just be enough of a carrot for No to scrape home in any indyref2 too if that is the price of SNP support
But is the Union really worth saving for Tories if Scotland is pretty much gone anyway? You get to keep Faslane and the UN Security Council seat, but in exchange Scotland is just going to continue irritating the hell out of you. Better to come to a pleasant settlement.
On a pure party politics basis no, on a national prestige basis yes (though the UN security council seat stays anyway most likely as Russia kept the old USSR seat).
In any case it would be Labour who grant an indyref2 and would have to win it so it will be Labour's problem basically to preserve the Union
"TV explorer Simon Reeve fears documentaries make him a climate ‘hypocrite’ Globetrotting presenter hopes ‘value’ of programmes offsets their carbon footprint"
Comments
Interesting choice of paper for Sunak (for it is clearly he) to leak to though. Maybe he's pitching himself to the Red Wall again?
However given Sunak and Hunt are fishing in the same pool of moderate MPs it is unlikely to succeed, or could even end up with the Home Secretary Priti Patel as the main candidate of the right making the membership vote instead of Truss with one of Sunak and Hunt still eliminated
It might be the wrong decision for the economy but when has that ever bothered a politician angling for higher office?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-may-allow-pro-independence-candidates-to-stand-in-scotland-2hpq3djvt
The only time two moderates have contested the final round of the Tory leadership post Thatcher was 1990 when Major faced Heseltine but then of course Major was seen, mistakenly, by Thatcherites as Maggie's true heir. Tebbit has also said he sometimes regrets not standing in 1990 once Thatcher resigned. Otherwise the Eurosceptic right almost always gets a candidate in the final 2 eg Redwood, Hague, IDS, Davis, Leadsom, Johnson and of course Howard was given a coronation in 2003.
Epic Fail...
I really don’t see the point of devomax. It won’t satisfy those who want Indy and it takes Scotland further from the union for those who value the union.
The defences used in this case, as reported , appear to be absurd; but that is not going to stop the defence trying them out, as you would expect them to.
An interesting legal question is whether they could alternatively be prosecuted under legislation that prohibits the vandalism of historic monuments. I doubt the same defences could apply. However, it would be for Bristol City Council, not the CPS, to initiate such action.
It's not unknown, I seem to recall, for trials to be moved well away from the site where the offence was committed in order to get a jury less sympathetic to the 'miscreants.'
There was too, in more recent times the strange prosecution for tax fraud of Ken Dodd, which took place in Liverpool, in front of a jury of Liverpudlians.
It is the UK as a unit that needs to be reformed, not 'give the Scots this and see if it will make them happy' - because it won't. It's like buying a wife who's leaving you a new runabout and a mink coat. A temporary fix.
As I have said before, a new Council of the Isles should be formed, consisting of representation (via Heads of Gmnt) of the UK, England, Scotland, Wales, and NI. Big defence, finance, and foreign policy decisions would need to get majority assent from the COTI before passing. It would not originate policy - it would have House of Lords style powers. THAT would save the UK.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-government-won-the-brexit-war-but-its-in-danger-of-losing-the-peace-bpcm8pl06
To expand on my quote in Robert’s piece:
I think some Brexit supporters hoped Brexit was the final victory, but are realising they still need to convince ppl their pet projects are a good idea/popular/sensible/desirable etc & not just EU membership preventing them from happening
https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1479942131062120454
Also the “the nation wants what I personally want” school of warning is very very tedious. Low-tax Singapore-on-Thames is entirely the preserve of wealthy right wingers who think they are a silent majority but are actually over represented in the media
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1479937893925859329
you don’t hear much about the Brexit Opportunities Unit these days
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1480104233680748546
'I couldn't complete my tax returns as my accountant had died.'
Barrister (Brian Leveson): 'That is not important to us.'
Dodd: 'Well, it was pretty important to him.'
Would the British and French empires have survived? What would the Soviet Union have looked like? Would Japan have occupied all of China?
And on fun drama, Spy City on Britbox is silly but well made and enjoyable: https://www.britbox.co.uk/programme/Spy_City_60760
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10381629/Mike-Ashley-vs-Amanda-Staveley-High-Court-showdown.html
I suspect that the Japanese might have got bogged down in trying to control China, again AIUI there was a lot of the country that they didn't control.
Could we, should we have given physical, as opposed to moral support to the Ethiopians against the Italians?
The distinguished leaders of Westminster seem determined to not even consider an English Parliament, and far prefer the idea of slicing England into fiefdoms or pretending mayors are just as good.
This would serve further benefits in that we wouldn't have to worry about compensating miscarriages of justice, and that centrist woke liberals would decide the UK is no longer the place for them.
However the Tories might have a chance of winning back a few seats Cameron won in 2015 they have since lost in London and the South under Sunak eg St Albans, Enfield Southgate, Putney, Battersea etc while comfortably holding all their other southern seats
As to the story, surely a stitch up would require the top two MPs' choice not being Truss, and I cannot see that happening. MPs are not so easily played and can switch their votes between rounds if required.
Although I doubt very much whether he would have won as big in 1997, leading to a workable Ashdown/Blair deal in 2002.
I obviously agree that this jury decision is not a precedent and that the basis of their decision remains entirely a matter for speculation. There is therefore no basis for concluding that there is some loophole in the law.
Beyond that, however... The suggestion that a statue which has been in place for over 100 years is somehow constituting an "offence" is frankly absurd and I think that the jury should have been so advised. This is of course a different question as to whether the statue was appropriate, should have been removed, etc. The test for something being "indecent" has been very high since at least the Lady Chatterley case in the 1960s and rightly so.
The argument that the statue was not damaged is beyond absurd and the argument that its value, whether as an exhibit or otherwise, is irrelevant. If you paint your garage wall white and your neighbour paints it yellow because that matches some colour scheme in the village you don't get to argue that you have "improved" it. What you have done is unlawfully interfered with another person's property.
My 11 year old really enjoyed it.
The argument that the jury has to weigh up the rights and wrongs of the rights of freedom of expression against the damage caused and determine whether it was proportionate is slightly more problematic. It might be used to deal with trespass, for example but as the secret Barrister acknowledges, these rights are not absolute and a State is entitled to rule that criminal damage is a crime without breaching the right of freedom of expression.
I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment. What seems to me to have happened in this case, however, is that a jury has been presented with a series of legal arguments which are matters for the judge, not for them. It is the job of the Judge to give directions to the jury on the law and the jury have to follow them, even if they disagree. The jury are there as masters of the facts and have to apply the law, as they are directed, to the facts as they find them. If I was looking for fault in this result I would be looking very carefully at the Judge's charge to the Jury and whether he simply allowed them to be bamboozled by legal arguments that he should have resolved. The key facts that the jury should have been directed to determine were:
1. Were the accused correctly identified as at least some of those responsible. I do not understand this to be disputed.
2. Was the crime libelled committed, that is was there in fact criminal damage to the statue? That would be a question of fact and the answer is self evident. They should have been directed that what happened to the statue was criminal damage.
3. Were the answers to 1 and 2 established beyond a reasonable doubt, discharging the onus on the Crown?
I am a big fan of the jury system and have rarely had a jury decision that I disagreed with, let alone could not see how they got there. For the system to work, however, the role of each part of the system has to be clear and operate effectively. That did not happen in this case but the fault, if there is any, more likely lies with the Judge rather than the jury.
Even though I would expect some Tory to Labour swing in the seats up this year since 2018, I would expect little Tory-LD swing therefore, especially as most of the councils in Home Counties Remain areas of Surrey and Oxfordshire the LDs would hope to do well in are not up in May
It's another bit of evidence that the crisis is manufactured by the government continuing to insist on 7 days isolation and testing for contacts. Time to end it for everyone except those with more than mild symptoms.
On May's elections I expect the lib dems to have a stellar performance, labour to disappoint and the conservatives to have a very poor night
There is a lot of talk of lib dem/ labour tactical voting but do not rule out conservatives voting tactically for lib dems in labour seats
Over time such policies indicate that we have less and less in common with rUK so the argument for full independence gets stronger, not weaker. If we need to play with the devolution settlement yet again I think we should be focussing on what is genuinely local and defending what is national, not more of this same doomed path.
London will be fascinating - there are one or two counter-intuitive trends which may yet ruin the planned narrative for the elections.
I don't think the Conservatives will do that badly - the doom of the London Conservatives has been prophesied on many occasions. This time I see a mixed bag - it's quite possible Labour will regain Wandsworth and perhaps Barnet and it'll be interesting to see how Hillingdon votes but in some of the inner London Labour strongholds I think we could see some surprisingly strong Conservative performances which may not translate into many seats.
I also think the Conservatives have some serious prospects of ending LD rule in Sutton and Kingston.
Labour will hope to gain Wandsworth and Barnet and make progress in Hillingdon but most of their fortresses are impregnable though I think there will be odd losses to Conservatives, Greens and LDs.
Havering is another borough where any Conservative losses might mean a change of administration.
As said, the LDs may be in trouble in Sutton and Kingston but will hope to survive there and start re-building in the rest of the capital.
The Greens have only 11 Councillors in the capital - they will be looking to build on that and possibly where they are challenging Labour in inner London might be their best chance of progress.
A far more sensible solution would be to propose a Royal Commission to draw up within two years a full, new constitutional settlement for the UK as a whole based on devolution all round (ironically first proposed by Joseph Chamberlain in the 1880s, but that's another story). That would have the advantage that there would be no need to grant a second Sindy ref before it reported, but any alterations it made would probably be an improvement and weaken the independence movement. (It might also by way of a bonus finally resolve the long running and still serious problem of the House of Lords.)
By driving it through piecemeal they're repeating Blair's mistake of seeing this as a political issue in Scotland (and Wales/NI to a lesser extent) not as an existential constitutional question.
It won’t be long before the SLDs and SCons also allow their parliamentary candidates to support Scottish independence on a personal conscience basis. They need to prepare for the post-independence landscape.
If you did you will see that you are arguing that the Judge should have silenced a set of arguments that he decided not to silence. And you then criticising him even though you previously said "I also agree that those who did not hear the evidence or indeed the arguments should be cautious in their judgment."
You can't have it both ways - but hey you did that last week when you commented on the Prince Andrew case while missing the fundamental sub-clause that said the clause you got upset about wasn't relevant
Convictions for killing statues of patriots would warrant a significant custodial sentence. But first we have to convict them. A star chamber chaired by PM Patel instead of trial by jury would do the trick.
The only safe Conservative councils I think are Kensington and Chelsea, Bexley, Bromley and probably Westminster. Wandsworth and Barnet (post Corbyn) and even Hillingdon as you say could go Labour. I doubt the LDs will lose any councils
Yet learn it Labour have not.
If you have two poles (no Scottish devolution and Scottish independence) and you keep on walking away from the former and towards the latter it's no surprise if support for the latter rises as the gap between that and current reality diminishes.
When you embed a new political dividing line it's to be expected that an institutionally imposed division increases, er, division. Increase the disparity and watch that increase in turn.
And it does affect other things too.
I was surprised in 2017 when my mother was very annoyed by a winter fuel allowance (think that was the issue) difference in the Conservative manifesto for Scotland. Pleased she was not.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/colston-four-jury-deliberations-explained-edward-colston-statue-slave-trade-dwv2v9md7?shareToken=88b9477c9d527f48fdcb576202c50b4b
Not that Patel has a fixable problem but I do think she is making things worse than they could otherwise be.
On the Andrew case I do not think you are being fair. When I saw the whole agreement it was clear that the definition of "second parties" did not include Andrew. That made it possible that "any other party who could have been a defendant" was capable of being construed narrowly which gives the claimant some sort of an argument although I am still of the view that that is not the natural reading of the words and that Andrew could have been a defendant and therefore falls within the exclusion. We shall see what the judge concludes.
Here in Surrey, Woking could be taken by the LibDems (the Cons lead a minority administration), Mole Valley should see a comfortable hold but I don't see any breakthroughs for them in Elmbridge or the other councils that elect in thirds. Next year will be the biggie with the all-outs.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1480098670032920576
Labour likely would grant it if it needed SNP confidence and supply, with devomax it seems as their carrot to Scots to vote No
The order would have to be enact devomax *then* hold the referendum.
But as I say, that would be a serious error anyway because it mistakes a major issue of governance for one of political strategy.
*The only thing donkeys and Scots have in common is a love of thistles.
"We can acquit for any reason we like, right?"
"Well... Yes... I guess..."
"Well I don't think they deserve 10 years in jail for defacing a stupid statue of a slaver"
"Me too"
"Also I have work to get back to"
"Not guilty it is then"
In any case it would be Labour who grant an indyref2 and would have to win it so it will be Labour's problem basically to preserve the Union
Globetrotting presenter hopes ‘value’ of programmes offsets their carbon footprint"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/09/tv-explorer-simon-reeve-fears-documentaries-make-him-a-climate-hypocrite