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.
Morris, Westminster is an English parliament.
It isn't but it might become so if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament, Starmer becomes PM with SNP support but the SNP abstain on England only legistlation
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"
Not in my experience although there is a difference in Scotland between High Court cases, which juries seem to take extremely seriously, and Sheriff and Jury cases, where "not proven" tends to be somewhat over used. I am not sure in Crown Court falls more into the latter category.
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 their 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
The LibDems performed poorly in the 2021 elections (County and Borough) in E & W though they did gain one of the Cobham seats in a by-election only a month later after flooding the place. I think the Tories will hold that in May. So I predict no change in the Con-Lib front. The picture is much clouded by the active Residents Associations.
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.
Just checked the local press (for what it's worth round here). Only mention of Patel is of her campaigning on law'n-order with the Southend West candidate and expecting more police across the force. (Essex & Southend)
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
The Tories can refuse indyref2 indefinitely and will, they do not need Scottish MPs to form a UK government, Labour however do
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's David Cameron's 'double or quits' EU strategy. The fact in that case was that there were genuine issues with the UK's relationship with the EU, his renegotiation failed to answer them, he banked on us bottling it, and the rest is history. Likewise, there are genuine issues raised by Scotland's current trajectory that are opportunities to make the whole UK fit for purpose in the 21st century. We need to change the whole UK, not just make Scotland more and more of a special case.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
Devomax isn't a bad thing to aim for. Not everyone in Scotland is in one trench or the other. There are those of us who see problems with both the status quo and with independence. Did there used to be a thing called compromise? I feel that would be a good thing to apply just now.
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 their 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
The LibDems performed poorly in the 2020 elections (County and Borough) in E & W though they did gain one of the Cobham seats in a by-election only a month later after flooding the place. I think the Tories will hold that in May. So I predict no change in the Con-Lib front. The picture is much clouded by the active Residents Associations.
I agree with you about the wider picture in 2023.
2021 though saw the Tories 7% ahead nationally, now the Tories are behind nationally the LDs are more likely to make gains this May than last May as are Labour. Albeit the LDs also did better in 2018 than they did in 2021 anyway relative to 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
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
The Tories can refuse indyref2 indefinitely and will, they do not need Scottish MPs to form a UK government, Labour however do
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
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
We have been trying to tell them that for quite a long time 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.
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.
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
We have been trying to tell them that for quite a long time now.
Blame Gove.
A good strategy on general principles, it has to be said.
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, I would agree with that. You get the same issue in drunken sex with 2 youngsters of a similar age. The jury look at a situation which has clearly arisen with some fault on both sides and think 5 years and a life long sex offender status for that? It could have been me back in the day. I think not.
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 their 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
The LibDems performed poorly in the 2020 elections (County and Borough) in E & W though they did gain one of the Cobham seats in a by-election only a month later after flooding the place. I think the Tories will hold that in May. So I predict no change in the Con-Lib front. The picture is much clouded by the active Residents Associations.
I agree with you about the wider picture in 2023.
2021 though saw the Tories 7% ahead nationally, now the Tories are behind the LDs are more likely to make gains this May than last May. Albeit the LDs also did better in 2018 than they did in 2021 anyway
Yes, but in Surrey as a whole, we lost a whopping net 14 seats, so there was a distinct adverse regional swing. But in E & W itself, the LibDems underperformed. And I'd be very surprised if they make gains here in May.
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.
I think the most important point is that the 2009 case was fundamentally about trafficking and procuring not about end users. The person it would most certainly protect is GM and it was probably drafted with her in mind
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
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"
Not in my experience although there is a difference in Scotland between High Court cases, which juries seem to take extremely seriously, and Sheriff and Jury cases, where "not proven" tends to be somewhat over used. I am not sure in Crown Court falls more into the latter category.
I think discussion of the likely punishment for conviction plays a massive roll in juries deliberations.
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.
Do you have instances of the Irish saying "It's Westminster's Fault" post-independence? Other than blaming Britain for things that happened before that point, for example the Famine. Which is a perfectly legitimate view.
I am expecting a relatively poor Labour local election result in England (i.e. not better than level pegging in the NEV) so that's why I think Johnson is now looking much safer. Starmer needs a few big prizes like Wandsworth and Barnet but I'm not convinced that will happen.
I expect the best Labour performance will be in Wales. Glasgow could also be interesting as the SNP administration there is so shambolically bad.
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.
To the first question, short answer, yes. There is plenty of concern over the pace of redevelopment of Kingston Town Centre. The Conservatives haven't really made the running on it but that won't stop them benefitting.
Woking is possible - elsewhere, I think Tandridge may be interesting. 2018 was dreadful for the Conservatives in East Surrey losing nine Councillors but that means this time they are only defending four seats with the LDs defending three and the ruling Independent/OLRG group defending six.
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
Devomax isn't a bad thing to aim for. Not everyone in Scotland is in one trench or the other. There are those of us who see problems with both the status quo and with independence. Did there used to be a thing called compromise? I feel that would be a good thing to apply just now.
Explain Devomax and why it is different from devolution where all power is retained to Westminster. It is weaselly pish and was supposedly what we got in 2014, so what is different from that stitch up and subsequent removal of powers at Westminster's whim. It is a bollox word used only by liars and charlatan's to encourage weak willed numpties they are getting something instead of being shafted yet again.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
The other parties are crap so people will turn to unknown crap, they will be worse than current roasters mind you, I doubt they could run a bath.
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
The system was derived from the idea of 'negative income tax' originally proposed by Milton Friedman and seriously considered by Keith Joseph. It was sold by Balls as a way of keeping work profitable for workers while keeping wages low for companies.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, I would agree with that. You get the same issue in drunken sex with 2 youngsters of a similar age. The jury look at a situation which has clearly arisen with some fault on both sides and think 5 years and a life long sex offender status for that? It could have been me back in the day. I think not.
I remember being told at a Uni sports union meeting that sex with anyone who was drunk was rape, as no consent could be given. And we were encouraged to report our teammates.
A lot of nervous shifting. Most people at uni got together after a drunken rendezvous, often after eyeing each other up for a couple of weeks.
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
But what is devomax going to mean? End of the Barnett formula? Almost all Scottish taxes going to the Scottish executive? Any change to the position or number of Scottish MPs at Westminster? The end of the UK single market?
They won't be able to join the EU, won't have their own currency. Their own border policy? We've seen in Australia the tensions between state and national policy.
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 their 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
The LibDems performed poorly in the 2020 elections (County and Borough) in E & W though they did gain one of the Cobham seats in a by-election only a month later after flooding the place. I think the Tories will hold that in May. So I predict no change in the Con-Lib front. The picture is much clouded by the active Residents Associations.
I agree with you about the wider picture in 2023.
2021 though saw the Tories 7% ahead nationally, now the Tories are behind nationally the LDs are more likely to make gains this May than last May as are Labour. Albeit the LDs also did better in 2018 than they did in 2021 anyway relative to the Tories
I think the Lib Dems will do OK and they will probably win the main prize of Somerset but will not do as well as they need to overall.
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
So you would have wanted more deaths in all the devolved countries just so they were as bad as England under Westminster. Brilliant thinking.
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.
I am expecting a relatively poor Labour local election result in England (i.e. not better than level pegging in the NEV) so that's why I think Johnson is now looking much safer. Starmer needs a few big prizes like Wandsworth and Barnet but I'm not convinced that will happen.
I expect the best Labour performance will be in Wales. Glasgow could also be interesting as the SNP administration there is so shambolically bad.
I think Labour will be about 5% ahead nationally and Starmer will make the biggest gains in terms of Labour councils and councillors' in a local election since Ed Miliband in 2012. Wandsworth and Barnet will likely go Labour.
However it will not be as terrible for the Tories as 2019 was when the Tory NEV was under 30%, so Boris will likely survive helped by holding a few flagship Tory councils like Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.
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.
Do you have instances of the Irish saying "It's Westminster's Fault" post-independence? Other than blaming Britain for things that happened before that point, for example the Famine. Which is a perfectly legitimate view.
Plenty of Irish people looking at Westminster and saying "What a bunch of loonies!"
Son in Barcelona sends pretty conclusive evidence here on the effectiveness of vaccinations in avoiding hospitalisation and death in Spain during November & December 2021.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
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.
Do you have instances of the Irish saying "It's Westminster's Fault" post-independence? Other than blaming Britain for things that happened before that point, for example the Famine. Which is a perfectly legitimate view.
Plenty of Irish people looking at Westminster and saying "What a bunch of loonies!"
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
The system was derived from the idea of 'negative income tax' originally proposed by Milton Friedman and seriously considered by Keith Joseph. It was sold by Balls as a way of keeping work profitable for workers while keeping wages low for companies.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
Sorry but no, the negative income tax is one I 100% support and have been advocating for, for decades. I've made countless posts about the flaws of the benefit system and why a negative income tax would be better.
Tax credits as implemented are the complete opposite of a negative income tax. The whole point of a negative income tax is that the real tax rate is consistent as opposed to having the poverty trap as people move from benefits to earnings.
Tax credits as implemented put people on real tax rates of upto and in some cases even exceeding 100%. That is NOT what a negative income tax is supposed to 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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
I think that we need to look again at fiscal policy. If it is the case that Rishi went down the road of NI rather than IT because of the complications of changing the rate in Scotland that would be a good example. I also question whether it is at all helpful that University policy has been differentiated. The ripping off of English students who come north and pay roughly twice what the SG pays for Scottish students for the same course is not acceptable within a single country.
Whilst the Scottish Health service has always been independent (albeit heavily integrated with England) I think it is unhelpful that some cancer drugs are available in England but not Scotland, a price we pay for our free prescription policy. As technological sophistication and expertise increases I would like to see integration increase rather than decrease.
On all of these issues, however, I am certainly not saying that Westminster is right and the devolved administrations are wrong (although personally I would come pretty close to that view on Covid). I think we need to find a better way of resolving differences of views and working together as a country. That could either be done by a new constitutional settlement or Westminster frankly being a lot less arrogant and more respectful of other democratic interests. I would prefer the latter approach but I acknowledge that recent governments have not boosted that side of the argument.
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.
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.
Poor diddums, is it upsetting you.
Simple statement of fact Malcolm. What's upsetting me is that the house elves failed to turn up to deal with the dishes overnight. Again.
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 their 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
The LibDems performed poorly in the 2020 elections (County and Borough) in E & W though they did gain one of the Cobham seats in a by-election only a month later after flooding the place. I think the Tories will hold that in May. So I predict no change in the Con-Lib front. The picture is much clouded by the active Residents Associations.
I agree with you about the wider picture in 2023.
2021 though saw the Tories 7% ahead nationally, now the Tories are behind the LDs are more likely to make gains this May than last May. Albeit the LDs also did better in 2018 than they did in 2021 anyway
Yes, but in Surrey as a whole, we lost a whopping net 14 seats, so there was a distinct adverse regional swing. But in E & W itself, the LibDems underperformed. And I'd be very surprised if they make gains here in May.
Is a factor annual local Election Day, councils that bucked voting trend maybe because they have been in so long people fancied change, maybe they were in first place against national trend so are out of cycle if you see what I mean? Or maybe have just become unpopular because they have done something. This is why betting wise PB really does benefit from people on the spot 🙂
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
What was the bass for such a long potential sentence?
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
Juries' increasing reluctance to convict was said to be one of the reasons for abolishing capital punishment.
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.
Morris, Westminster is an English parliament.
It isn't but it might become so if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament, Starmer becomes PM with SNP support but the SNP abstain on England only legistlation
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.
Morris, Westminster is an English parliament.
It isn't but it might become so if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament, Starmer becomes PM with SNP support but the SNP abstain on England only legistlation
Like Sunday trading?
Therein lies the problem. Not all issues are clean cut as being obviously devolved or obviously reserved. Little consequences ripple out from everything. Federalism is really tempting idea here.
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
What was the bass for such a long potential sentence?
Populist politicians playing to the gallery?
Do not forget the current attempts to pass legislation which apparently has enough leeway in the wording to allow the killing of migrants and the prosecution of the RNLI if they try interfere.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
I think my Lib Dems should call for the windfall tax too actually Big G. In fact your Tories should steal it. My reasoning is, whilst energy prices cause consumer pain, those with it to sell are making lots of lovely dosh! So you take a bit from that windfall one end, to ease pain at other. What are you saying is wrong in that?
I’m even hopeful Saint Bart will agree with this one.
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.
I think the most important point is that the 2009 case was fundamentally about trafficking and procuring not about end users. The person it would most certainly protect is GM and it was probably drafted with her in mind
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
I have drafted similar agreements (not involving sex trafficking but other wrongs) and from the defence point of view the priority is to make them as wide as possible because what you do not want to happen is that they sue someone else who then brings you back in again as a third party to contribute to their cost. So, taking the current example, if the agreement did not cover Andrew and if Epstein was not dead Andrew could have brought Epstein back in again saying, if I did have sex with her I had no idea that she was being trafficked or controlled in that way and Epstein should relieve me of any liability.
This defeats the benefit of the deal from Epstein's point of view and is why I think his lawyers were seeking to exclude any potential defendant. Whether they succeeded, of course, is for the Judge to determine.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
I’m actually convinced Johnson does not survive the next couple of weeks, let alone make it to May. It’s this wallpaper business very dangerous to him now. The Parliament standards lady says she won’t investigate. Labour squealing she should, Tories arguing it falls under Geet because it’s cabinet not MP matter.
I reckon it can go like this. Saying she won’t investigate is good news for Boris. But if she changes her mind, and finds against him, he’s in Paterson position facing suspension which is even more than vonk it instant resignation.
I may be the only person on PB seeing wallpaper for access bringing Boris down in next couple of weeks, but I don’t care, I think it can so easily happen like when country’s apparently sleep walk into war - the key question for those shaking your head at my post is to ask yourself, the Parliament sleaze lady who done for Paterson, not at moment investigating the Prime Minister, Why would she change her mind?
A while since I studied French but wouldn’t “emmerder” translate as “put in the shit”?
It doesn't have a literal English translation. It's a niveau argotique term that implies the subject will be deliberately provoked to anger with the intensity dependent on the context.
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.
I think the most important point is that the 2009 case was fundamentally about trafficking and procuring not about end users. The person it would most certainly protect is GM and it was probably drafted with her in mind
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
I have drafted similar agreements (not involving sex trafficking but other wrongs) and from the defence point of view the priority is to make them as wide as possible because what you do not want to happen is that they sue someone else who then brings you back in again as a third party to contribute to their cost. So, taking the current example, if the agreement did not cover Andrew and if Epstein was not dead Andrew could have brought Epstein back in again saying, if I did have sex with her I had no idea that she was being trafficked or controlled in that way and Epstein should relieve me of any liability.
This defeats the benefit of the deal from Epstein's point of view and is why I think his lawyers were seeking to exclude any potential defendant. Whether they succeeded, of course, is for the Judge to determine.
The issue I have is that you are a lawyer and yet seem happy to happily discuss things when you don't have the complete picture even when a more complete picture is available with just a little effort.
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.
I think the most important point is that the 2009 case was fundamentally about trafficking and procuring not about end users. The person it would most certainly protect is GM and it was probably drafted with her in mind
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
I have drafted similar agreements (not involving sex trafficking but other wrongs) and from the defence point of view the priority is to make them as wide as possible because what you do not want to happen is that they sue someone else who then brings you back in again as a third party to contribute to their cost. So, taking the current example, if the agreement did not cover Andrew and if Epstein was not dead Andrew could have brought Epstein back in again saying, if I did have sex with her I had no idea that she was being trafficked or controlled in that way and Epstein should relieve me of any liability.
This defeats the benefit of the deal from Epstein's point of view and is why I think his lawyers were seeking to exclude any potential defendant. Whether they succeeded, of course, is for the Judge to determine.
The issue I have is that you are a lawyer and yet seem happy to happily discuss things when you don't have the complete picture even when a more complete picture is available with just a little effort.
Well, that's a shame. This is entertainment for me, and a general chat. If you want a more detailed and comprehensive view please confirm where the invoice should be sent.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
I think my Lib Dems should call for the windfall tax too actually Big G. In fact your Tories should steal it. My reasoning is, whilst energy prices cause consumer pain, those with it to sell are making lots of lovely dosh! So you take a bit from that windfall one end, to ease pain at other. What are you saying is wrong in that?
I’m even hopeful Saint Bart will agree with this one.
I think you miss the point
The windfall tax works as long as the vat is retained and the windfall is used to help those on uc and low paid
There is no point abolishing vat for everyone at the cost of a windfall tax when the help doing this is miniscule when considering the problem
On the Scotland proposals how on earth would Labour benefit from allowing individual candidates to support Scottish independence. Even by their normal standards that seems to me a stupefyingly stupid approach to consider.
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.
I would suggest we are part way there, because we have essentially got rid of the idea that serious violent and sexual criminals can actually be rehabilitated.
But the fact that Patel is a believer in capital punishment won't help her get endorsements from MPS, or necessarily with the selectorate.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
A windfall tax on the oil and gas industry will encourage energy companies to invest overseas rather than in the UK. Given we are far from energy self sufficient, this seems unwise.
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
The system was derived from the idea of 'negative income tax' originally proposed by Milton Friedman and seriously considered by Keith Joseph. It was sold by Balls as a way of keeping work profitable for workers while keeping wages low for companies.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
Sorry but no, the negative income tax is one I 100% support and have been advocating for, for decades. I've made countless posts about the flaws of the benefit system and why a negative income tax would be better.
Tax credits as implemented are the complete opposite of a negative income tax. The whole point of a negative income tax is that the real tax rate is consistent as opposed to having the poverty trap as people move from benefits to earnings.
Tax credits as implemented put people on real tax rates of upto and in some cases even exceeding 100%. That is NOT what a negative income tax is supposed to be.
If I change 'policy' for 'idea' in the original post, would that resolve 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
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
I think that we need to look again at fiscal policy. If it is the case that Rishi went down the road of NI rather than IT because of the complications of changing the rate in Scotland that would be a good example. I also question whether it is at all helpful that University policy has been differentiated. The ripping off of English students who come north and pay roughly twice what the SG pays for Scottish students for the same course is not acceptable within a single country.
Whilst the Scottish Health service has always been independent (albeit heavily integrated with England) I think it is unhelpful that some cancer drugs are available in England but not Scotland, a price we pay for our free prescription policy. As technological sophistication and expertise increases I would like to see integration increase rather than decrease.
On all of these issues, however, I am certainly not saying that Westminster is right and the devolved administrations are wrong (although personally I would come pretty close to that view on Covid). I think we need to find a better way of resolving differences of views and working together as a country. That could either be done by a new constitutional settlement or Westminster frankly being a lot less arrogant and more respectful of other democratic interests. I would prefer the latter approach but I acknowledge that recent governments have not boosted that side of the argument.
Typical Tory viewpoint David, we are not a single country and we should be forced to do as England bids. Scottish students get charged in England so why would any intelligent person expect English students to get free education in Scotland. Re NHS , there are also drugs available here that are not available in England, it is called choice. Poor poor post from you trying to support the union with such spurious feeble points.
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.
I would suggest we are part way there, because we have essentially got rid of the idea that serious violent and sexual criminals can actually be rehabilitated.
But the fact that Patel is a believer in capital punishment won't help her get endorsements from MPS, or necessarily with the selectorate.
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.
I think the most important point is that the 2009 case was fundamentally about trafficking and procuring not about end users. The person it would most certainly protect is GM and it was probably drafted with her in mind
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
I have drafted similar agreements (not involving sex trafficking but other wrongs) and from the defence point of view the priority is to make them as wide as possible because what you do not want to happen is that they sue someone else who then brings you back in again as a third party to contribute to their cost. So, taking the current example, if the agreement did not cover Andrew and if Epstein was not dead Andrew could have brought Epstein back in again saying, if I did have sex with her I had no idea that she was being trafficked or controlled in that way and Epstein should relieve me of any liability.
This defeats the benefit of the deal from Epstein's point of view and is why I think his lawyers were seeking to exclude any potential defendant. Whether they succeeded, of course, is for the Judge to determine.
The issue I have is that you are a lawyer and yet seem happy to happily discuss things when you don't have the complete picture even when a more complete picture is available with just a little effort.
Well, that's a shame. This is entertainment for me, and a general chat. If you want a more detailed and comprehensive view please confirm where the invoice should be sent.
All these posts have been "In my expert opinion" and then based on very incomplete information reaching conclusions that results in you (to me at least) looking like a clueless foul...
See for instance Prince Andrew being able to use the agreement (missing the fundamental question on how could you use an agreement that they shouldn't know about, let alone the clauses that made it clear where it could be used)
And then the Colson case where the Judge's guidance has actually been published and it's incredibly clear that the Judge did a decent review of covering the bits.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
I think my Lib Dems should call for the windfall tax too actually Big G. In fact your Tories should steal it. My reasoning is, whilst energy prices cause consumer pain, those with it to sell are making lots of lovely dosh! So you take a bit from that windfall one end, to ease pain at other. What are you saying is wrong in that?
I’m even hopeful Saint Bart will agree with this one.
Absolutely not, I don't believe in general in redistribution and certainly not in examples like this.
If you take the profits companies make from them, then who is going to invest in the UK? When we need serious investments going forwards.
When the price of energy plunges nobody redistributes to pass more money to the companies so why do the opposite when the price surges?
I do agree with abolishing VAT on domestic energy to relieve the pressure on consumers across the nation. The tax is seriously regressive and while it won't be a cure-all it would be a step in the right direction.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
I’m actually convinced Johnson does not survive the next couple of weeks, let alone make it to May. It’s this wallpaper business very dangerous to him now. The Parliament standards lady says she won’t investigate. Labour squealing she should, Tories arguing it falls under Geet because it’s cabinet not MP matter.
I reckon it can go like this. Saying she won’t investigate is good news for Boris. But if she changes her mind, and finds against him, he’s in Paterson position facing suspension which is even more than vonk it instant resignation.
I may be the only person on PB seeing wallpaper for access bringing Boris down in next couple of weeks, but I don’t care, I think it can so easily happen like when country’s apparently sleep walk into war - the key question for those shaking your head at my post is to ask yourself, the Parliament sleaze lady who done for Paterson, not at moment investigating the Prime Minister, Why would she change her mind?
It seems the wallpaper issue is not going further but that partygate report is likely soon
I expect heads will role but not Boris, and as many commentators believe he is safe until post May elections
The other thing to consider with Boris is that few if any of his successors want the poison chalice just now
I do not bet but if I did I would put good money on him being there in June 22
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's attempt to win over pro-indy voters, in an attempt to get a Labour majority. Starmer doesn't need to a formal deal with the SNP providing Labour (or Labour + Lib Dems) have more MPs than the Conservatives.
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.
Do you have instances of the Irish saying "It's Westminster's Fault" post-independence? Other than blaming Britain for things that happened before that point, for example the Famine. Which is a perfectly legitimate view.
You can see an echo of it in the way the Fine Gael government under Leo Varadkar sought to blame any bad news on Brexit. The "Callan's Kicks" satirical radio programme is a good cultural reference point for this. See also this article which describes the Economic War as "a classic post-colonial dispute", which goes to show that such an attitude is to be expected, even depended upon.
You can also see it in the Brexit debate. The UK is out of the EU now, but so much is still presented as being the fault of the EU.
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
ALthough we should note it was escalated to that level of possible punishment at their request. A magistrate would probably have given them the CS and a fine.
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
The system was derived from the idea of 'negative income tax' originally proposed by Milton Friedman and seriously considered by Keith Joseph. It was sold by Balls as a way of keeping work profitable for workers while keeping wages low for companies.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
Sorry but no, the negative income tax is one I 100% support and have been advocating for, for decades. I've made countless posts about the flaws of the benefit system and why a negative income tax would be better.
Tax credits as implemented are the complete opposite of a negative income tax. The whole point of a negative income tax is that the real tax rate is consistent as opposed to having the poverty trap as people move from benefits to earnings.
Tax credits as implemented put people on real tax rates of upto and in some cases even exceeding 100%. That is NOT what a negative income tax is supposed to be.
If I change 'policy' for 'idea' in the original post, would that resolve the issue?
The idea of a negative income tax is a very good one, but that's not what Brown implemented even if that's basically what he called it.
Brown added welfare and called it tax credits. It was welfare though, no more, no less.
Brown had a tendency to do one thing and call it the opposite. Like his day to day expenditure he called "investment".
But just rebranding one thing into something else doesn't make it the other thing. If I give you a lump of coal and say I've given you a bouquet of roses, then what have I given you?
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
ALthough we should note it was escalated to that level of possible punishment at their request. A magistrate would probably have given them the CS and a fine.
Am I correct in thinking several pleaded guilty at magistrates and received exactly that? Sure I read it, but now can't find any evidence.
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
So you would have wanted more deaths in all the devolved countries just so they were as bad as England under Westminster. Brilliant thinking.
Well, no, until the vaccines came along I would have favoured a tighter approach, based on trying to make the most of the natural advantage Britain has in being an island. Clearly such an approach can only be implemented on an all-island basis. If it had been halfway successful it would have meant a much lower rate of death across the whole island of Britain.
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.
I would suggest we are part way there, because we have essentially got rid of the idea that serious violent and sexual criminals can actually be rehabilitated.
But the fact that Patel is a believer in capital punishment won't help her get endorsements from MPS, or necessarily with the selectorate.
MPs may be an issue, however if she gets through to the selectorate she's on a home run. I was very specific in the criminality she might focus upon. Crimes that tug on the heartstrings. Child sexual abuse, murder of police officers, terrorism. (I missed out infanticide too) will all be electorally very popular.
Capital treason is a handy little tool to have in the box as populism is ratcheted up.
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
So you would have wanted more deaths in all the devolved countries just so they were as bad as England under Westminster. Brilliant thinking.
Well, no, until the vaccines came along I would have favoured a tighter approach, based on trying to make the most of the natural advantage Britain has in being an island. Clearly such an approach can only be implemented on an all-island basis. If it had been halfway successful it would have meant a much lower rate of death across the whole island of Britain.
Although such a policy could surely also only have been implemented with the help of the Republic of Ireland?
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
The system was derived from the idea of 'negative income tax' originally proposed by Milton Friedman and seriously considered by Keith Joseph. It was sold by Balls as a way of keeping work profitable for workers while keeping wages low for companies.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
Sorry but no, the negative income tax is one I 100% support and have been advocating for, for decades. I've made countless posts about the flaws of the benefit system and why a negative income tax would be better.
Tax credits as implemented are the complete opposite of a negative income tax. The whole point of a negative income tax is that the real tax rate is consistent as opposed to having the poverty trap as people move from benefits to earnings.
Tax credits as implemented put people on real tax rates of upto and in some cases even exceeding 100%. That is NOT what a negative income tax is supposed to be.
If I change 'policy' for 'idea' in the original post, would that resolve the issue?
The idea of a negative income tax is a very good one, but that's not what Brown implemented even if that's basically what he called it.
Brown added welfare and called it tax credits. It was welfare though, no more, no less.
Brown had a tendency to do one thing and call it the opposite. Like his day to day expenditure he called "investment".
But just rebranding one thing into something else doesn't make it the other thing. If I give you a lump of coal and say I've given you a bouquet of roses, then what have I given you?
I'm thinking the answer to my question and your final question is 'a no.'
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.
I think the most important point is that the 2009 case was fundamentally about trafficking and procuring not about end users. The person it would most certainly protect is GM and it was probably drafted with her in mind
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
I have drafted similar agreements (not involving sex trafficking but other wrongs) and from the defence point of view the priority is to make them as wide as possible because what you do not want to happen is that they sue someone else who then brings you back in again as a third party to contribute to their cost. So, taking the current example, if the agreement did not cover Andrew and if Epstein was not dead Andrew could have brought Epstein back in again saying, if I did have sex with her I had no idea that she was being trafficked or controlled in that way and Epstein should relieve me of any liability.
This defeats the benefit of the deal from Epstein's point of view and is why I think his lawyers were seeking to exclude any potential defendant. Whether they succeeded, of course, is for the Judge to determine.
The issue I have is that you are a lawyer and yet seem happy to happily discuss things when you don't have the complete picture even when a more complete picture is available with just a little effort.
Well, that's a shame. This is entertainment for me, and a general chat. If you want a more detailed and comprehensive view please confirm where the invoice should be sent.
All these posts have been "In my expert opinion" and then based on very incomplete information reaching conclusions that results in you (to me at least) looking like a clueless foul...
See for instance Prince Andrew being able to use the agreement (missing the fundamental question on how could you use an agreement that they shouldn't know about, let alone the clauses that made it clear where it could be used)
And then the Colson case where the Judge's guidance has actually been published and it's incredibly clear that the Judge did a decent review of covering the bits.
I have not said in my expert opinion, I have said in my experience. And I have explained why it was in Epstein's interest to seek to protect Andrew whether Andrew knew of the agreement or not.
I cannot actually see the link you put forward for the Judge's directions in the Colson case, it says the limit has been reached, but again in my experience this is where trials can go wrong. If you look at any successful appeal against conviction it tends to be based on the charge, once again for reasons I have explained. Appeals are on points of law. From the summary that the Secret Barrister has produced, and he/she is very experienced in these matters, it seemed to me that a lot of legal questions have been left for the jury to determine and that may well have resulted in the acquittal.
Dame Nellie Melba, Gough Whitlam, Sir Les Patterson, Ned Kelly, Kylie, your boys failed to give our boys a helluva beating.
After a bad winter tour it's great to wake up to see a marvelous English triumph downunder to match the tremendous Scottish 0-0 defeat of England during the Euros.
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 think the key takeaway of the Colston 4 verdict is that creating excessively harsh punishments for iconoclasm or similar activity is likely to backfire. If punishments are unreasonable then juries will refuse to convict.
Yes, that's the lesson here. Had the sentence been a few hundred hours of community service and no jail time it's likely the jury would have convicted them. 5 years in jail just doesn't seem proportionate to the crime.
ALthough we should note it was escalated to that level of possible punishment at their request. A magistrate would probably have given them the CS and a fine.
Am I correct in thinking several pleaded guilty at magistrates and received exactly that? Sure I read it, but now can't find any evidence.
That’s interesting, I was wondering why it was just these four being prosecuted.
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.
Brown's tax credits are ultra-right wing?
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
The system was derived from the idea of 'negative income tax' originally proposed by Milton Friedman and seriously considered by Keith Joseph. It was sold by Balls as a way of keeping work profitable for workers while keeping wages low for companies.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
Sorry but no, the negative income tax is one I 100% support and have been advocating for, for decades. I've made countless posts about the flaws of the benefit system and why a negative income tax would be better.
Tax credits as implemented are the complete opposite of a negative income tax. The whole point of a negative income tax is that the real tax rate is consistent as opposed to having the poverty trap as people move from benefits to earnings.
Tax credits as implemented put people on real tax rates of upto and in some cases even exceeding 100%. That is NOT what a negative income tax is supposed to be.
If I change 'policy' for 'idea' in the original post, would that resolve the issue?
The idea of a negative income tax is a very good one, but that's not what Brown implemented even if that's basically what he called it.
Brown added welfare and called it tax credits. It was welfare though, no more, no less.
Brown had a tendency to do one thing and call it the opposite. Like his day to day expenditure he called "investment".
But just rebranding one thing into something else doesn't make it the other thing. If I give you a lump of coal and say I've given you a bouquet of roses, then what have I given you?
I'm thinking the answer to my question and your final question is 'a no.'
Yes to summarise no the idea wasn't right wing.
The branding might have been. But that was Brown and Balls taking a left wing idea, slapping some right wing lipstick on it, then pretending it was something different to what it truly was.
Found Don’t Look Up a bit meh which seems a minority position. The parody of the POTUS and presidency seemed overly crude though I accept the previous incumbent has coarsened perceptions. I felt there was a fair bit of satirising of the US reaction to COVID as much as there was of our attitude to ecological disaster.
Dame Nellie Melba, Gough Whitlam, Sir Les Patterson, Ned Kelly, Kylie, your boys failed to give our boys a helluva beating.
Indeed, we have avoided the 5-0 thrashing the Australians gave us in the 2013 and 2007 Ashes series therefore
I'd draw a really rubbish analogy with GE17 for us Labourites. We didn't win but it felt like the most glorious of victories and for weeks we celebrated.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
I think my Lib Dems should call for the windfall tax too actually Big G. In fact your Tories should steal it. My reasoning is, whilst energy prices cause consumer pain, those with it to sell are making lots of lovely dosh! So you take a bit from that windfall one end, to ease pain at other. What are you saying is wrong in that?
I’m even hopeful Saint Bart will agree with this one.
Absolutely not, I don't believe in general in redistribution and certainly not in examples like this.
If you take the profits companies make from them, then who is going to invest in the UK? When we need serious investments going forwards.
When the price of energy plunges nobody redistributes to pass more money to the companies so why do the opposite when the price surges?
I do agree with abolishing VAT on domestic energy to relieve the pressure on consumers across the nation. The tax is seriously regressive and while it won't be a cure-all it would be a step in the right direction.
Oh. So Pirates completely against any form of windfall distribution?
When companies and industries in trouble though we do help out? Throw taxpayer money at steel, fertiliser plants, at rich Japanese companies so they keep factories here, so it’s a quid pro qua thing?
With the cutting of any taxes, government also need to cut health waiting lists where people are in pain, if you were PM you would have to tax more these coming years to achieve aims like that as well, somehow, not just talk up being a tax cutting platform?
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's attempt to win over pro-indy voters, in an attempt to get a Labour majority. Starmer doesn't need to a formal deal with the SNP providing Labour (or Labour + Lib Dems) have more MPs than the Conservatives.
It is the misguided witterings of a London numpty who knows F all about Scotland. He could not run a bath.
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.
I'm a big fan of making decisions at the appropriate scale, so there are some things that I would like to see devolved away from London to the English regions, and there are other things that I would like to see pooled at an International level, and others where a single-island policy seems appropriate (Covid should have been responded to on an all-island basis, for example).
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
So you would have wanted more deaths in all the devolved countries just so they were as bad as England under Westminster. Brilliant thinking.
Well, no, until the vaccines came along I would have favoured a tighter approach, based on trying to make the most of the natural advantage Britain has in being an island. Clearly such an approach can only be implemented on an all-island basis. If it had been halfway successful it would have meant a much lower rate of death across the whole island of Britain.
Although such a policy could surely also only have been implemented with the help of the Republic of Ireland?
Ireland were receptive to cross-border cooperation.
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
No change there then. The Tories have spent the last half century trying to destroy the Union. Labour are the last bastion.
Found Don’t Look Up a bit meh which seems a minority position. The parody of the POTUS and presidency seemed overly crude though I accept the previous incumbent has coarsened perceptions. I felt there was a fair bit of satirising of the US reaction to COVID as much as there was of our attitude to ecological disaster.
I really liked it but I agree it was not as obvious to me as it seems to have been to some that the deliberate disregard of the evidence was any more applicable to ecological issues than Covid. I would also agree that it was not one of Streep's more nuanced performances.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
I’m actually convinced Johnson does not survive the next couple of weeks, let alone make it to May. It’s this wallpaper business very dangerous to him now. The Parliament standards lady says she won’t investigate. Labour squealing she should, Tories arguing it falls under Geet because it’s cabinet not MP matter.
I reckon it can go like this. Saying she won’t investigate is good news for Boris. But if she changes her mind, and finds against him, he’s in Paterson position facing suspension which is even more than vonk it instant resignation.
I may be the only person on PB seeing wallpaper for access bringing Boris down in next couple of weeks, but I don’t care, I think it can so easily happen like when country’s apparently sleep walk into war - the key question for those shaking your head at my post is to ask yourself, the Parliament sleaze lady who done for Paterson, not at moment investigating the Prime Minister, Why would she change her mind?
It seems the wallpaper issue is not going further but that partygate report is likely soon
I expect heads will role but not Boris, and as many commentators believe he is safe until post May elections
The other thing to consider with Boris is that few if any of his successors want the poison chalice just now
I do not bet but if I did I would put good money on him being there in June 22
The poison chalice argument is often made but is mistaken because the calm waters sought by would-be successors will help cement Boris in place. They need to strike while Boris is down and the country in turmoil. Only if the Prime Minister is voluntarily stepping down is there a case for letting the incumbent take the flak but then there is the danger he might change his mind, as Macmillan doubtless would have done.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
I’m actually convinced Johnson does not survive the next couple of weeks, let alone make it to May. It’s this wallpaper business very dangerous to him now. The Parliament standards lady says she won’t investigate. Labour squealing she should, Tories arguing it falls under Geet because it’s cabinet not MP matter.
I reckon it can go like this. Saying she won’t investigate is good news for Boris. But if she changes her mind, and finds against him, he’s in Paterson position facing suspension which is even more than vonk it instant resignation.
I may be the only person on PB seeing wallpaper for access bringing Boris down in next couple of weeks, but I don’t care, I think it can so easily happen like when country’s apparently sleep walk into war - the key question for those shaking your head at my post is to ask yourself, the Parliament sleaze lady who done for Paterson, not at moment investigating the Prime Minister, Why would she change her mind?
It seems the wallpaper issue is not going further but that partygate report is likely soon
I expect heads will role but not Boris, and as many commentators believe he is safe until post May elections
The other thing to consider with Boris is that few if any of his successors want the poison chalice just now
I do not bet but if I did I would put good money on him being there in June 22
“ It seems the wallpaper issue is not going further but that partygate report is likely soon “
That touches right on my point Big G, wallpaper for access is going to go further and bring Johnson down very quickly now. You say it’s not going further because she says she is not going to investigate. Can you not think of two or 3 good reasons why she would change her mind?
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.
Poor diddums, is it upsetting you.
Unionists are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They’d be better acknowledging the weakness of their hand and settling for a good deal. They won’t.
As I understand it Rachel Reeves is seeking a windfall tax on the oil industry which according to her will raise 1.2 billion
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
I think my Lib Dems should call for the windfall tax too actually Big G. In fact your Tories should steal it. My reasoning is, whilst energy prices cause consumer pain, those with it to sell are making lots of lovely dosh! So you take a bit from that windfall one end, to ease pain at other. What are you saying is wrong in that?
I’m even hopeful Saint Bart will agree with this one.
Absolutely not, I don't believe in general in redistribution and certainly not in examples like this.
If you take the profits companies make from them, then who is going to invest in the UK? When we need serious investments going forwards.
When the price of energy plunges nobody redistributes to pass more money to the companies so why do the opposite when the price surges?
I do agree with abolishing VAT on domestic energy to relieve the pressure on consumers across the nation. The tax is seriously regressive and while it won't be a cure-all it would be a step in the right direction.
Oh. So Pirates completely against any form of windfall distribution?
When companies and industries in trouble though we do help out? Throw taxpayer money at steel, fertiliser plants, at rich Japanese companies so they keep factories here, so it’s a quid pro qua thing?
With the cutting of any taxes, government also need to cut health waiting lists where people are in pain, if you were PM you would have to tax more these coming years to achieve aims like that as well, somehow, not just talk up being a tax cutting platform?
Indeed, I'm in favour of cut throat buccaneering competition not the state redistributing and choosing winners and losers.
I would view the waiting list caused by the pandemic (as opposed to day to day waiting lists) as part of the 'war effort' from the pandemic so would add the costs related to that to pandemic induced debt.
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 expect the Tories to come back some from their recent lows by May. Better weather, Covid largely gone, freedom to get back to socialising, the best we have felt for two years. Sure, we still have an economy that has issues, but Boris to get some credit for not having been bounced into extreme restrictions on the economy, in spite of the dire warnings of the "experts".
Found Don’t Look Up a bit meh which seems a minority position. The parody of the POTUS and presidency seemed overly crude though I accept the previous incumbent has coarsened perceptions. I felt there was a fair bit of satirising of the US reaction to COVID as much as there was of our attitude to ecological disaster.
I really liked it but I agree it was not as obvious to me as it seems to have been to some that the deliberate disregard of the evidence was any more applicable to ecological issues than Covid. I would also agree that it was not one of Streep's more nuanced performances.
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"
Not in my experience although there is a difference in Scotland between High Court cases, which juries seem to take extremely seriously, and Sheriff and Jury cases, where "not proven" tends to be somewhat over used. I am not sure in Crown Court falls more into the latter category.
I think discussion of the likely punishment for conviction plays a massive roll in juries deliberations.
Absolutely. The case that Mrs Foxy was on the Jury for a couple of years back weighed that very heavily in their considerations.
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.
Good post.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
I’m actually convinced Johnson does not survive the next couple of weeks, let alone make it to May. It’s this wallpaper business very dangerous to him now. The Parliament standards lady says she won’t investigate. Labour squealing she should, Tories arguing it falls under Geet because it’s cabinet not MP matter.
I reckon it can go like this. Saying she won’t investigate is good news for Boris. But if she changes her mind, and finds against him, he’s in Paterson position facing suspension which is even more than vonk it instant resignation.
I may be the only person on PB seeing wallpaper for access bringing Boris down in next couple of weeks, but I don’t care, I think it can so easily happen like when country’s apparently sleep walk into war - the key question for those shaking your head at my post is to ask yourself, the Parliament sleaze lady who done for Paterson, not at moment investigating the Prime Minister, Why would she change her mind?
It seems the wallpaper issue is not going further but that partygate report is likely soon
I expect heads will role but not Boris, and as many commentators believe he is safe until post May elections
The other thing to consider with Boris is that few if any of his successors want the poison chalice just now
I do not bet but if I did I would put good money on him being there in June 22
The poison chalice argument is often made but is mistaken because the calm waters sought by would-be successors will help cement Boris in place. They need to strike while Boris is down and the country in turmoil. Only if the Prime Minister is voluntarily stepping down is there a case for letting the incumbent take the flak but then there is the danger he might change his mind, as Macmillan doubtless would have done.
Or Blair, who agreed to go in 2005, then 2006, and was finally dragged out kicking and screaming in 2007.
Comments
I agree with you about the wider picture in 2023.
I think the big success story in May’s elections will be the greens. They seem to be able to win everywhere at the moment. Is it young or new voters driving the Green election successes?
On the other side of the argument, I think HYUFD is right and Big G wrong because there is neither a standard balanced local election battleground nor obvious conclusion from results. If HYUFD says this years battleground doesn’t suit Libdems that is good enough for me.
It’s not actually libdems but Labour who seem to be making progress in national polls. The 35-40 lab Tory picture seems to have reversed since end October.
As well as unbalanced battle grounds each year, how results went last time seats were up can also make for an unbalanced picture where it’s too easy to conclude the wrong take out. To be fair to Boris Johnson under Corbyn Labour seemed to have a lot of poor local elections even when the battleground should have suited them, which means Tories are in for some tough defences in this group of years? So glib conclusion is results verdict on Johnson being rubbish, which is true because he had been found out now, but any leader would have found defending the same position tough, is that fair to say?
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-pissed-off-vaccine-anti-vaxxers/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1641569762
A while since I studied French but wouldn’t “emmerder” translate as “put in the shit”?
Blame Gove.
They didn't sing the song. Criminal.
4/1 against or longer that Andrew gets to benefit from the 2009 agreement.
They're really, really not!
And they're a disaster, completely agreed, but a left wing tax and redistribution disaster.
Other than blaming Britain for things that happened before that point, for example the Famine. Which is a perfectly legitimate view.
I expect the best Labour performance will be in Wales. Glasgow could also be interesting as the SNP administration there is so shambolically bad.
Woking is possible - elsewhere, I think Tandridge may be interesting. 2018 was dreadful for the Conservatives in East Surrey losing nine Councillors but that means this time they are only defending four seats with the LDs defending three and the ruling Independent/OLRG group defending six.
What sort of things that are currently devolved do you think should be better decided on a whole UK level?
It is weaselly pish and was supposedly what we got in 2014, so what is different from that stitch up and subsequent removal of powers at Westminster's whim.
It is a bollox word used only by liars and charlatan's to encourage weak willed numpties they are getting something instead of being shafted yet again.
If you consider that genesis left wing then you're much further to the right than I thought.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/taxcreditsthesuccessandfailure
A lot of nervous shifting. Most people at uni got together after a drunken rendezvous, often after eyeing each other up for a couple of weeks.
They won't be able to join the EU, won't have their own currency. Their own border policy? We've seen in Australia the tensions between state and national policy.
I tend to think it is just a slogan.
It even has a flow chart (albeit text rather than visio) to help the jurors make a decision.
However it will not be as terrible for the Tories as 2019 was when the Tory NEV was under 30%, so Boris will likely survive helped by holding a few flagship Tory councils like Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.
At the same time she wants to abolish the 5% vat on energy bills at a cost of 1.5 billion
Therefore, labour are proposing a small cut in the bills for the low paid and pensioners while handing a reduction to the wealthy and that the overall effect is at best a minor help to the cost of living crisis
She also wants to invest tens of billions in retro fitting homes and nuclear energy, but this will have no effect on this year or next years cost of living crisis
Britain faces surgeon shortage, as cancelled operations leave graduates under-qualified
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/08/britain-faces-surgeon-shortage-cancelled-operations-leave-graduates/ (£££)
Tax credits as implemented are the complete opposite of a negative income tax. The whole point of a negative income tax is that the real tax rate is consistent as opposed to having the poverty trap as people move from benefits to earnings.
Tax credits as implemented put people on real tax rates of upto and in some cases even exceeding 100%. That is NOT what a negative income tax is supposed to be.
Although, from the x-ray, it looks like anyone with a saw, power drill and some massive screws could've done the same. Absolutely brutal.
Whilst the Scottish Health service has always been independent (albeit heavily integrated with England) I think it is unhelpful that some cancer drugs are available in England but not Scotland, a price we pay for our free prescription policy. As technological sophistication and expertise increases I would like to see integration increase rather than decrease.
On all of these issues, however, I am certainly not saying that Westminster is right and the devolved administrations are wrong (although personally I would come pretty close to that view on Covid). I think we need to find a better way of resolving differences of views and working together as a country. That could either be done by a new constitutional settlement or Westminster frankly being a lot less arrogant and more respectful of other democratic interests. I would prefer the latter approach but I acknowledge that recent governments have not boosted that side of the argument.
Do not forget the current attempts to pass legislation which apparently has enough leeway in the wording to allow the killing of migrants and the prosecution of the RNLI if they try interfere.
I’m even hopeful Saint Bart will agree with this one.
This defeats the benefit of the deal from Epstein's point of view and is why I think his lawyers were seeking to exclude any potential defendant. Whether they succeeded, of course, is for the Judge to determine.
I reckon it can go like this. Saying she won’t investigate is good news for Boris. But if she changes her mind, and finds against him, he’s in Paterson position facing suspension which is even more than vonk it instant resignation.
I may be the only person on PB seeing wallpaper for access bringing Boris down in next couple of weeks, but I don’t care, I think it can so easily happen like when country’s apparently sleep walk into war - the key question for those shaking your head at my post is to ask yourself, the Parliament sleaze lady who done for Paterson, not at moment investigating the Prime Minister, Why would she change her mind?
The windfall tax works as long as the vat is retained and the windfall is used to help those on uc and low paid
There is no point abolishing vat for everyone at the cost of a windfall tax when the help doing this is miniscule when considering the problem
But the fact that Patel is a believer in capital punishment won't help her get endorsements from MPS, or necessarily with the selectorate.
Or just dropped.
See for instance Prince Andrew being able to use the agreement (missing the fundamental question on how could you use an agreement that they shouldn't know about, let alone the clauses that made it clear where it could be used)
And then the Colson case where the Judge's guidance has actually been published and it's incredibly clear that the Judge did a decent review of covering the bits.
If you take the profits companies make from them, then who is going to invest in the UK? When we need serious investments going forwards.
When the price of energy plunges nobody redistributes to pass more money to the companies so why do the opposite when the price surges?
I do agree with abolishing VAT on domestic energy to relieve the pressure on consumers across the nation. The tax is seriously regressive and while it won't be a cure-all it would be a step in the right direction.
I expect heads will role but not Boris, and as many commentators believe he is safe until post May elections
The other thing to consider with Boris is that few if any of his successors want the poison chalice just now
I do not bet but if I did I would put good money on him being there in June 22
You can also see it in the Brexit debate. The UK is out of the EU now, but so much is still presented as being the fault of the EU.
Brown added welfare and called it tax credits. It was welfare though, no more, no less.
Brown had a tendency to do one thing and call it the opposite. Like his day to day expenditure he called "investment".
But just rebranding one thing into something else doesn't make it the other thing. If I give you a lump of coal and say I've given you a bouquet of roses, then what have I given you?
Sure I read it, but now can't find any evidence.
Capital treason is a handy little tool to have in the box as populism is ratcheted up.
I cannot actually see the link you put forward for the Judge's directions in the Colson case, it says the limit has been reached, but again in my experience this is where trials can go wrong. If you look at any successful appeal against conviction it tends to be based on the charge, once again for reasons I have explained. Appeals are on points of law. From the summary that the Secret Barrister has produced, and he/she is very experienced in these matters, it seemed to me that a lot of legal questions have been left for the jury to determine and that may well have resulted in the acquittal.
The branding might have been. But that was Brown and Balls taking a left wing idea, slapping some right wing lipstick on it, then pretending it was something different to what it truly was.
When companies and industries in trouble though we do help out? Throw taxpayer money at steel, fertiliser plants, at rich Japanese companies so they keep factories here, so it’s a quid pro qua thing?
With the cutting of any taxes, government also need to cut health waiting lists where people are in pain, if you were PM you would have to tax more these coming years to achieve aims like that as well, somehow, not just talk up being a tax cutting platform?
That touches right on my point Big G, wallpaper for access is going to go further and bring Johnson down very quickly now. You say it’s not going further because she says she is not going to investigate. Can you not think of two or 3 good reasons why she would change her mind?
I would view the waiting list caused by the pandemic (as opposed to day to day waiting lists) as part of the 'war effort' from the pandemic so would add the costs related to that to pandemic induced debt.