This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.
As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?
Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:
What's happening to pay? My regular chart
Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.
Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc
Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.
Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
Today's figures shows pay is rising at half the rate of inflation which is toxic for any government, not least one with a COE who has a tin ear for those who will suffer the most
There have been three major shocks to the economy in the last few years - brexit, covid and war-induced price rises. They all imply a downward adjustment in living standards, at least temporarily. 'Pay rising at half the rate of inflation' is a symptom of that adjustment. It may be toxic for any government as you say, but there's not much that can be done about it.
There’s plenty that can be done about Brexit in terms of a more sensible relationship with the EU.
There’s a bit that can be done about COVID in terms of better public health measures to reduce the impact infections are still having on the economy.
There’s lots that can be done in terms of supporting people through economic disruption.
Youngster in back of car on way home from school. Parent; How was school today? “Great! I’m a tresbien!” (Modern Parenting moment) “And how do you feel about that?” “Happy” “We were learning French today and I’m tresbien.”
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
IMHO, what he tweeted is what he thinks. When someone shows you their arse, believe them.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.
As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?
Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:
What's happening to pay? My regular chart
Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.
Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc
Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.
Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation apart from in finance and IT due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
Inflation is currently due to supply cost increases which is bad enough. If inflation turns into wage inflation we are in big big trouble. You won't have been around in the 70s with inflation exceeding 20%. We were so close to hyper inflation.
By the way, contyrary to what some of us thought yesterday, the recall process, if triggered by court action, does not (according to the Guardian) kick in until all appeals have been exhausted, so the potential by-election is some way off.
By the way, contyrary to what some of us thought yesterday, the recall process, if triggered by court action, does not (according to the Guardian) kick in until all appeals have been exhausted, so the potential by-election is some way off.
No there's 2 different things. Representation of the People Act 1981 seems to me to kick him out the instant he is sentenced to a year or more and goes to prison. Tough on him if he gets it overturned on appeal but that is kneejerk legislation for you (Bobby Sands). If he gets less then a year or it's suspended then Recall of MPs Act 2015 applies and yes you have to exhaust appeals
As reported it does appear to be word against word?
The Jury decided who they believed. From the report the victim appears to have been the more credible witness, complaining contemporaneously and backed by his parents. Blunt did not hear that testimony.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve not read anything about the case so don’t have a view on it. The jury will have heard the evidence and made up their mind - I’m just slightly surprised that you can get to “beyond reasonable doubt” when you are dependant on testimony without (presumably) corroborating evidence
Without reading the trial transcript, you cannot assume no corroborating evidence. Also, from the short reports I’ve seen, Khan’s testimony appears weak and inconsistent.
Not commenting on this case in particular, but "weak and inconsistent" would basically be my memory for an unnoteworthy event that was supposed to have occurred fourteen years ago.
Say you were alone with a child for a couple of hours one day: babysitting, or giving music lessons, or whatever. Nothing bad happened. Then, years later, the child comes out with a story. You might barely remember being with the child, because nothing happened. You can say nothing happened, because you know that is true: but it becomes harder to say what happened, because nothing noteworthy did.
I am certainly not saying this is true in Khan's case, and Blunt's been an ass, but an invented story might always be 'fresher' than a defence of innocence.
Can any of the court regulars tell me if there is any sense in the above, or can juries tell when people simply cannot remember as opposed to being evasive?
AIUI, the victim/his parents called the police at the time. It’s not one of those situations like you describe, where an allegation comes out of the blue, decades later.
Oh really? Another case of the police not doing their job properly at the time by the sounds of it.
I don’t know about that - from what I read “he decided not to press charges at the time” or something along those lines. To be fair to the police, it may not have been incompetence on their part.
However, the way the far right are now attempting to question a jury's conviction on a case shows the depths to which they have sunk.
Who, apart from Blunt, has questioned the Jury’s verdict?
List please.
Have a read down below and you'll see the insinuations against the conviction.
To which, add MPs Crispin Blunt and Sir Peter Bottomley
What has Sir Peter Bottomley said to question the jury’s verdict?
He said it was not the verdict he anticipated but that, unless it is overturned on appeal, the jury's verdict has to be respected. Not remotely in the same league as Blunt's comments.
In other words, despite Heathener’s characteristic smear, Bottomley explicitly supported the Jury’s verdict.
Only grudgingly. And with a smear. "I the Tory Backbencher MP know so much better than the Enemies of the People, and the People themselves in the Jury Box." Better left unsaid.
Even on the words reported, I disagree that Bottomley was grudging or that there was any smear. And, unlike Blunt, Bottomley hasn't posted anything on the internet. His comments are being reported by the PA News Agency. We don't know what questions the reporter asked to produce his responses.
Youngster in back of car on way home from school. Parent; How was school today? “Great! I’m a tresbien!” (Modern Parenting moment) “And how do you feel about that?” “Happy” “We were learning French today and I’m tresbien.”
French is excellent for that kind of thing. ‘I’m a mir gates goat’ just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Crispin Blunt really should have been retired a long time ago. He's one of those Conservative MPs who would make meetings of the 1922 committee resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
And before that Reigate had George Gardiner.
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.
As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?
Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:
What's happening to pay? My regular chart
Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.
Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc
Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.
Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
Today's figures shows pay is rising at half the rate of inflation which is toxic for any government, not least one with a COE who has a tin ear for those who will suffer the most
There have been three major shocks to the economy in the last few years - brexit, covid and war-induced price rises. They all imply a downward adjustment in living standards, at least temporarily. 'Pay rising at half the rate of inflation' is a symptom of that adjustment. It may be toxic for any government as you say, but there's not much that can be done about it.
There’s plenty that can be done about Brexit in terms of a more sensible relationship with the EU.
There’s a bit that can be done about COVID in terms of better public health measures to reduce the impact infections are still having on the economy.
There’s lots that can be done in terms of supporting people through economic disruption.
The government seems to be mirroring the public's view of Covid (it's over, no more crisis). No one is in the mood for another crisis, this time an economic one, but this is precisely when the government should be stepping up, not suffering from fatigue as it appears to be.
Crispin Blunt really should have been retired a long time ago. He's one of those Conservative MPs who would make meetings of the 1922 committee resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
And before that Reigate had George Gardiner.
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
Crispin Blunt really should have been retired a long time ago. He's one of those Conservative MPs who would make meetings of the 1922 committee resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
And before that Reigate had George Gardiner.
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
They do. Think of Peterborough, between 1997 and 2019.
The usual chinless wonders have today chained themselves to Lloyd's of London.
For reasons only known to themselves.
It's probably because it's close to Tarquin's daddy's office so he can get a lift home in time for dinner.
As usual plod just stands there and stares. They don't seem to do anything unless you upset an oligarch or have the temerity to break the speed limit.
Perhaps it’s because they’ve finally twigged that Lloyd’s of London had its origins in the slave trade.
Or that it underwrites marine commerce, a major source of pollution.
So they think it’s bad.
Remind them that it also took the wealth of lots of rich people in the underwriting scandal and they’ll probably bugger off back to their seven bed mansions in Surrey again.
One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':
P rivates are private A lways remember your body belongs to you N o means no T alk about secrets that upset you S peak up, someone can help.
This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.
What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
Consent is an important principle but young children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
I don't think it does. Explaining to young children that they don't have the ability to consent is a lot more complicated a concept to get across than telling them that they can say no to an adult.
It is of course entirely your choice but if you love Daddy.....
Children are conditioned from a very young age to obey adults. Letting them know that there are circumstances where this doesn't apply is important.
Graun feed reporting on General Dannatt in Sky News interview:
"European Union countries have been pretty open on accepting Ukrainian refugees. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has put together – despite all the rhetoric from the government – a pretty complicated system.
The form-filling is very onerous. It would be much better if a family only had to make one application. Typically, it’s a mother, and one or two or three children filling in an application. But we’ve got a situation whereby even a two or three year old child has to have a separate application and answer quite ridiculous questions asking what sort of former employment they have been in, and have they been involved in the armed forces."
Patel should be sacked for her inability to make the scheme work
I thought she had been complaining about it?
Patel is ultimately in charge of the scheme
She’ll certainly be ultimately in charge of the scheme when BJ decides it’s making him look bad.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.
As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?
Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:
What's happening to pay? My regular chart
Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.
Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc
Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.
Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
Today's figures shows pay is rising at half the rate of inflation which is toxic for any government, not least one with a COE who has a tin ear for those who will suffer the most
There have been three major shocks to the economy in the last few years - brexit, covid and war-induced price rises. They all imply a downward adjustment in living standards, at least temporarily. 'Pay rising at half the rate of inflation' is a symptom of that adjustment. It may be toxic for any government as you say, but there's not much that can be done about it.
The first one of those three was of course entirely of the government's making.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
IMO, Blunt certainly should not have commented on the verdict without listening to the whole trial.
However, if Blunt had listened to all the evidence, then he is perfectly free to give his opinion -- whether in agreement with the jury or not.
As for "it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system", that is just ludicrous over-reaction.
The jury system is not like the red squirrel, meriting entitlement to special status.
Zillions of people over the years have questioned the verdict of a jury -- think of all the celebrities who queried the Hanratty verdict from John & Yoko to Ludovic Kennedy, and they were ultimately proved wrong.
The TV debate between Macron and Le Pen is only 4 days before the vote, so there won’t be much time to change the narrative if it goes badly for either of them.
The usual chinless wonders have today chained themselves to Lloyd's of London.
For reasons only known to themselves.
It's probably because it's close to Tarquin's daddy's office so he can get a lift home in time for dinner.
As usual plod just stands there and stares. They don't seem to do anything unless you upset an oligarch or have the temerity to break the speed limit.
Perhaps it’s because they’ve finally twigged that Lloyd’s of London had its origins in the slave trade.
Or that it underwrites marine commerce, a major source of pollution.
So they think it’s bad.
Remind them that it also took the wealth of lots of rich people in the underwriting scandal and they’ll probably bugger off back to their seven bed mansions in Surrey again.
I do wonder how they think they would live without marine commerce....and the necessary insurance it requires. All the environmentally friendly goodies used make their mobile phone must be magically assembled by the power of fairy dust?
Or is it because they have nothing else really useful to do and it's the Easter holidays?
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
IMO, Blunt certainly should not have commented on the verdict without listening to the whole trial.
However, if Blunt had listened to all the evidence, then he is perfectly free to give his opinion -- whether in agreement with the jury or not.
As for "it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system", that is just ludicrous over-reaction.
The jury system is not like the red squirrel, meriting entitlement to special status.
Zillions of people over the years have questioned the verdict of a jury -- think of all the celebrities who queried the Hanratty verdict from John & Yoko to Ludovic Kennedy, and they were ultimately proved wrong.
🇺🇦marines of the 36th brigade shared a farewell video from Mariupol, saying they are devoted to Ukraine till the end. However, no ammunition was delivered to them in the besieged city. They ask to finish the job and fight for victory.
Crispin Blunt really should have been retired a long time ago. He's one of those Conservative MPs who would make meetings of the 1922 committee resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
And before that Reigate had George Gardiner.
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
Voters, eh.
If by voters, you mean members of Reigate Conservative Association, yes.
The TV debate between Macron and Le Pen is only 4 days before the vote, so there won’t be much time to change the narrative if it goes badly for either of them.
The stakes are even higher given there is no postal voting in France . All people vote just on the day , if you can’t make it on the day you can nominate a proxy but it’s a complicated process .
The boy girl angle is an interesting one. I was having lunch with two friends and they told me of their son who learnt all about sex from his baby sitter. She was a neighbour of about 17 and he was 13 or 14 and apparently it went on until he was too old to need a sitter. He told them about ten years later. I asked his mother what she thought of it and she said she was shocked! His father thought he was a very lucky boy
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It isn't, the polls for the government are still far closer to 1964, 1992 or 2010 or than pre 1997.
And in 2 of those three cases, there was a change of government.
As for 1992, who is the John Major figure who can change the tone and ditch a totemically had policy?
Meanwhile, there are some new pay data out. This wasn't in the plan:
What's happening to pay? My regular chart
Healthy nominal pay growth, meaning real pay overall flat - but driven by financial services & bonuses.
Despite staff shortages/Brexit etc, real pay in accommodation/food services well below pre-pandemic levels https://t.co/IIoOAiIjlc
Yes but in 1964 Wilson got a majority of just 4 and in 2010 it was a hung parliament, nowhere near a 1997 style landslide. While in 1992 the government was narrowly re elected against most final polls.
Pay is rising, just not as fast as inflation due to rising energy costs and reduced supply due to the Ukraine war
Today's figures shows pay is rising at half the rate of inflation which is toxic for any government, not least one with a COE who has a tin ear for those who will suffer the most
There have been three major shocks to the economy in the last few years - brexit, covid and war-induced price rises. They all imply a downward adjustment in living standards, at least temporarily. 'Pay rising at half the rate of inflation' is a symptom of that adjustment. It may be toxic for any government as you say, but there's not much that can be done about it.
The first one of those three was of course entirely of the government's making.
The problem with Brexit is many sided. I think if no referendum had occurred we would still have endless Euroscepticism and Farage ranting away. If Leave had lost, the same. Just as its fair for Remainers to campaign to rejoin/overturn the vote, so would it have been fair for Leavers to do the same (leave/overturn the vote). Would a 48/52 vote the other way have solved anything?
Since the vote much has gone wrong. We shouldn't rehearse the dreadful history of 2016-2019, but it was not an edifying period for government, and arguably it led to the situation we have now - an awful PM, who lies as he breathes, effectively getting away with it because he has a large majority.
Like it or not membership of the EU had been divisive in the UK for many years, and something needed to be done. The decisions taken after the event may ultimately prove to be poor ones, and future governments are at liberty to change tack, and i am sure they will.
The boy girl angle is an interesting one. I was having lunch with two friends and they told me of their son who learnt all about sex from his baby sitter. She was a neighbour of about 17 and he was 13 or 14 and apparently it went on until he was too old to need a sitter. He told them about ten years later. I asked his mother what she thought of it and she said she was shocked! His father thought he was a very lucky boy
Crispin Blunt really should have been retired a long time ago. He's one of those Conservative MPs who would make meetings of the 1922 committee resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
And before that Reigate had George Gardiner.
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
Voters, eh.
Most voters are remarkably tolerant of their MP's. 23,000 still voted for Jeremy Thorpe in 1979, after all.
UPDATE: Blunt offers something approaching an apology and offers his resignation as chair of the LGBT+ APPG
“On reflection I have decided to retract my statement defending Imran Ahmad Khan. I am sorry that my defence of him has been a cause of significant upset and concern not least to victims of sexual offences. It was not my intention to do this.
To be clear I do not condone any form of abuse and I strongly believe in the independence and integrity of the justice system.
It is a particularly difficult time for LGBT+ rights across the world and my statement risks distracting the APPG for Global LGBT+ Rights from its important purpose. I have today offered the officers my resignation so a new Chair can be found to continue the work of the group with full force.”
The boy girl angle is an interesting one. I was having lunch with two friends and they told me of their son who learnt all about sex from his baby sitter. She was a neighbour of about 17 and he was 13 or 14 and apparently it went on until he was too old to need a sitter. He told them about ten years later. I asked his mother what she thought of it and she said she was shocked! His father thought he was a very lucky boy
And as for sex with underage boys ...
Well, it is clear from Hodges' biography of Alan Turing that Turing was not primarily interested in men -- and Turing has ended up on the £ 50 note.
It is clear from Joe Orton's diaries that he had no qualms about sex with 9 year old Arab boys.
It is true that Khan has not constructed a Test as subtle as Turing's or a play as great as What the Butler Saw
Khan is just a rather mediocre Tory MP. It is really this that we cannot forgive
One of the things that has changed since my dad is the way kids are being taught about privacy. When my little 'un was in nursery, there were signs on the wall about 'PANTS':
P rivates are private A lways remember your body belongs to you N o means no T alk about secrets that upset you S peak up, someone can help.
This continued into school, and he is aware of the issues, although not scared. As adults, we have to ensure that if kids talk to us and speak up, we listen.
What on earth does "no means no" in a nursery setting? it is an important message for young or vulnerable adults but not for infants. Maybe "never means never"?
No means no and you always have the right to say ‘no’ – even to a family member or someone you love. You’re in control of your body and the most important thing is how YOU feel. If you want to say ‘No’, it’s your choice.
Consent is an important principle but young children simply cannot consent to sexual contact. It is automatically illegal and I think that this confuses things for the sake of an acronym.
I don't think it does. Explaining to young children that they don't have the ability to consent is a lot more complicated a concept to get across than telling them that they can say no to an adult.
It is of course entirely your choice but if you love Daddy.....
Children are conditioned from a very young age to obey adults. Letting them know that there are circumstances where this doesn't apply is important.
"Children are conditioned from a very young age to obey adults...." - you've obviously never met my children!
The boy girl angle is an interesting one. I was having lunch with two friends and they told me of their son who learnt all about sex from his baby sitter. She was a neighbour of about 17 and he was 13 or 14 and apparently it went on until he was too old to need a sitter. He told them about ten years later. I asked his mother what she thought of it and she said she was shocked! His father thought he was a very lucky boy
Are you sure he wasn't making it up?
Apparently not. My surprise was that he shared it with his parents!
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
The boy girl angle is an interesting one. I was having lunch with two friends and they told me of their son who learnt all about sex from his baby sitter. She was a neighbour of about 17 and he was 13 or 14 and apparently it went on until he was too old to need a sitter. He told them about ten years later. I asked his mother what she thought of it and she said she was shocked! His father thought he was a very lucky boy
Are you sure he wasn't making it up?
“Readers’ babysitters” could be an exciting new category..
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority and was head of a minority government for most of his tenure.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
"and they have BBC editorial control" - do you really believe this?
I think the BBC tries really hard to be balanced. This usually means the more extreme someone views are the more they are likely to think the BBC is biased because it does not represent their views. Can you give some examples of the editorial control? And please not the 'Johnson at the cenotaph mistake'.
I am no fan of the BBC. I think its far too metropolitan elite, and has no concept of the population out of the bigger cities. You only need watch Countryfile to see this. You will learn more in 5 minutes of Clarksons Farm than you will in a year of Countryfile. But even with this, I think they try damn hard to be as balanced as possible, especially in terms of the political parties.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
Not least because Blair was popular and had ideas and policies.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
Imran Khan MP and Dr Jamie Wallis MP and Rob Roberts MP are features of our Parliamentary system.
A big win normally produces some surprise constituency gains. The candidates for those seats are not usually serious individuals -- because no-one with any sense thought they would ever win in the first place.
Cf Jaraid O'Mara, the Clegg-Slayer in Sheffield Hallam, also now fighting off sexual harassment allegations.
Still, I am inclined to cut someone a lot of slack for Clegg-icide. Put O'Mara on the £50 note.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority
His majority was 21 when they won the election. A very comfortable majority. The problem was that the Conservatives were split on Europe so he was dealing with two competing factions in his party.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
The Scottish seats is a huge difference though. Those 56 seats need finding elsewhere in the UK, and that makes it a lot harder, or you face coalition. And it its with the SNP you know what the price will be.
UPDATE: Blunt offers something approaching an apology and offers his resignation as chair of the LGBT+ APPG
“On reflection I have decided to retract my statement defending Imran Ahmad Khan. I am sorry that my defence of him has been a cause of significant upset and concern not least to victims of sexual offences. It was not my intention to do this.
To be clear I do not condone any form of abuse and I strongly believe in the independence and integrity of the justice system.
It is a particularly difficult time for LGBT+ rights across the world and my statement risks distracting the APPG for Global LGBT+ Rights from its important purpose. I have today offered the officers my resignation so a new Chair can be found to continue the work of the group with full force.”
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
Ah, the Lib Dems are going to get obsessed with "decapitation" again? Useful to know.
UPDATE: Blunt offers something approaching an apology and offers his resignation as chair of the LGBT+ APPG
“On reflection I have decided to retract my statement defending Imran Ahmad Khan. I am sorry that my defence of him has been a cause of significant upset and concern not least to victims of sexual offences. It was not my intention to do this.
To be clear I do not condone any form of abuse and I strongly believe in the independence and integrity of the justice system.
It is a particularly difficult time for LGBT+ rights across the world and my statement risks distracting the APPG for Global LGBT+ Rights from its important purpose. I have today offered the officers my resignation so a new Chair can be found to continue the work of the group with full force.”
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
The effect on pay rises and business investment will be interesting.
And despite the best employment situation since anyone can remember there will be endless thousands rushing off to get themselves £50k in debt doing totally unsuitable 'university' courses.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority
His majority was 21 when they won the election. A very comfortable majority. The problem was that the Conservatives were split on Europe so he was dealing with two competing factions in his party.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
Here's some help for you.
The Conservative majority of 21 seats was gradually eroded by a string of by-election defeats as well as the defection of one MP to Labour, and by the turn of 1997 the Conservatives were without a majority in the House of Commons.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
For the May 2022 General Election, certainly.
Which is why it's not happening.
Come back in two years.
Or even 2 and a half as Autumn 2024 is possible, indeed even later upto January 25
Imran Khan MP and Dr Jamie Wallis MP and Rob Roberts MP are features of our Parliamentary system.
A big win normally produces some surprise constituency gains. The candidates for those seats are not usually serious individuals -- because no-one with any sense thought they would ever win in the first place.
Cf Jaraid O'Mara, the Clegg-Slayer in Sheffield Hallam, also now fighting off sexual harassment allegations.
Still, I am inclined to cut someone a lot of slack for Clegg-icide. Put O'Mara on the £50 note.
I suspect Clegg is secretly appreciative of O'Mara too: had he remained an MP perhaps that Facebook gig wouldn't have materialized and the billions in earnings that will ensue.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
The Scottish seats is a huge difference though. Those 56 seats need finding elsewhere in the UK, and that makes it a lot harder, or you face coalition. And it its with the SNP you know what the price will be.
I do not see why Labour will have any problem having an agreement with the SNP. The price will be a referendum on independence not independence. There is an important difference and both parties will accept that as a fair deal.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority
His majority was 21 when they won the election. A very comfortable majority. The problem was that the Conservatives were split on Europe so he was dealing with two competing factions in his party.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
Here's some help for you.
The Conservative majority of 21 seats was gradually eroded
Thanks for being so patronising but you said that John Major "never really had a working majority" which is a lie, or an untruth if you prefer it dressed better. He had one for 5 years after the 1992 election.
- someone complains bitterly that a particular Burger KIng has gone vegan, someone else says "It's just like George Orwell's 1994 [sic]" and someone replies: "Yeah, I remember that chapter when Winston was forced to go to BK when he really really wanted to go to McDonalds. Harrowing scene, simply harrowing."
Burger King affably responded "Thanks for the PR!"
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
The Scottish seats is a huge difference though. Those 56 seats need finding elsewhere in the UK, and that makes it a lot harder, or you face coalition. And it its with the SNP you know what the price will be.
I do not see why Labour will have any problem having an agreement with the SNP. The price will be a referendum on independence not independence. There is an important difference and both parties will accept that as a fair deal.
Just as Johnson doesn't want to be the man who lost the Union, neither will Starmer. It will also be a weapon against labour should it appear before the election that it would be up for grabs.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority
His majority was 21 when they won the election. A very comfortable majority. The problem was that the Conservatives were split on Europe so he was dealing with two competing factions in his party.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
by the turn of 1997 the Conservatives were without a majority in the House of Commons.
Which is 5 years after the election. So John Major had a better majority for 5 years than Clegg-Cameron in 2010-15 or Theresa May in 2017-19.
Crispin Blunt really should have been retired a long time ago. He's one of those Conservative MPs who would make meetings of the 1922 committee resemble the bar scene in Star Wars.
And before that Reigate had George Gardiner.
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
Voters, eh.
If by voters, you mean members of Reigate Conservative Association, yes.
Voters could easily become members of Reigate Conservative Association if they wanted to or cared about changing their PPC.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
The Scottish seats is a huge difference though. Those 56 seats need finding elsewhere in the UK, and that makes it a lot harder, or you face coalition. And it its with the SNP you know what the price will be.
I do not see why Labour will have any problem having an agreement with the SNP. The price will be a referendum on independence not independence. There is an important difference and both parties will accept that as a fair deal.
And what will Labour campaign for in this subsequent referendum?
And what will happen if the SNP win? Labour lose "their" Scottish seats forever. Bye bye Starmer.
And what happens if the SNP lose? I'm sure they would happily continue co-operatively working with Labour after their dreams are destroyed. Bye Bye Starmer.
It's a marriage made in heaven. What could possibly go wrong!
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
They may be. But, back in the mid 90's Labour was winning places like Hertsmere, Dacorum, Kettering, Fenland (!), Castle Point etc. where they're not even in the running now.
- someone complains bitterly that a particular Burger KIng has gone vegan, someone else says "It's just like George Orwell's 1994 [sic]" and someone replies: "Yeah, I remember that chapter when Winston was forced to go to BK when he really really wanted to go to McDonalds. Harrowing scene, simply harrowing."
Burger King affably responded "Thanks for the PR!"
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
The worst mistake Major made for the Tories was being surprisingly good by winning the 1992 election. If he had lost the Tories would probably have been back in 96/97.
The effect on pay rises and business investment will be interesting.
And despite the best employment situation since anyone can remember there will be endless thousands rushing off to get themselves £50k in debt doing totally unsuitable 'university' courses.
Despite all the negatvity on here about the economic position, the employment situation is this Country is remarkable.
Controversial perhaps but I think it’s great Shell and BP are going into renewables. Without them we can’t save the planet.
No reason this should be controversial. The easiest way to decarbonise supply is for existing sellers of energy to plug low carbon products into their existing corporate platform and client base. They won’t all manage it if they have high cultural inertia but those with nimble management will.
The area of the economy that really doesn’t get enough attention from the left (or the right) are the international commodity traders. Barely regulated, mostly private and incorporated in low tax jurisdictions, foreign policy power brokers in their own right and systemic to our economies. And often with morals in the gutter.
Zelensky wrote to the Swiss based traders to ask them to stop buying Russian oil products, as it was funding genocide. Trafigura’s response can be loosely paraphrased as “meh”. Totsa / Total are seemingly still all in on Russia, which should be to Macron’s eternal shame.
In comparison the British government should be fiercely defending the likes of Shell and Bp, which are not only among the fastest of the oil groups to try and transition to low carbon but also in lockstep with national interest.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. That's why there are so few prosecutions in rape cases, for example - the secondary evidence just isn't there, even if the police/CPS think the rape probably did occur. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I do not think you are right and it does not matter how often you repeat the assertion. The media are not wholly pro Johnson and never like hypocrisy which makes the comparison made by Heathener valid.
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
The Scottish seats is a huge difference though. Those 56 seats need finding elsewhere in the UK, and that makes it a lot harder, or you face coalition. And it its with the SNP you know what the price will be.
I do not see why Labour will have any problem having an agreement with the SNP. The price will be a referendum on independence not independence. There is an important difference and both parties will accept that as a fair deal.
And what will Labour campaign for in this subsequent referendum?
And what will happen if the SNP win? Labour lose "their" Scottish seats forever. Bye bye Starmer.
And what happens if the SNP lose? I'm sure they would happily continue co-operatively working with Labour after their dreams are destroyed. Bye Bye Starmer.
It's a marriage made in heaven. What could possibly go wrong!
Provided Labour have most seats, a PM Starmer can ignore the SNP even in a hung parliament and the SNP are hardly likely to vote with the Tory opposition. He can just offer devomax.
Only if the Tories have most seats in a hung parliament does Starmer have to offer the SNP indyref2 to get into power
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
The worst mistake Major made for the Tories was being surprisingly good by winning the 1992 election. If he had lost the Tories would probably have been back in 96/97.
It was certainly an election to lose. It all but ensured the landslides of 97, 2001 etc.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
Come back in two years.
Are you telling me to go away?
Thanks for the welcome.
Not at all. When you write "everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out" one bit of objective data you have overlooked is the date of the General Election - which may be as far away as two years.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority
His majority was 21 when they won the election. A very comfortable majority. The problem was that the Conservatives were split on Europe so he was dealing with two competing factions in his party.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
by the turn of 1997 the Conservatives were without a majority in the House of Commons.
Which is 5 years after the election. So John Major had a better majority for 5 years than Clegg-Cameron in 2010-15 or Theresa May in 2017-19.
Major had a bigger majority than the coalition? That's a new one.
Election night '92 the feeling was very much that the Tories were back for a comfortable 5 more years. That they were unable to hold themselves together was due to incompetence, poor behaviour, and their own internal contradictions. I began to plot to leave the country for a bit.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
The worst mistake Major made for the Tories was being surprisingly good by winning the 1992 election. If he had lost the Tories would probably have been back in 96/97.
Possibly.
The 1997 general election would have likely been Heseltine or Portillo v a PM Kinnock with a small majority or minority government.
That would have been much closer than the 1997 landslide Blair got v PM Major
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Added to which Major never really had a working majority
His majority was 21 when they won the election. A very comfortable majority. The problem was that the Conservatives were split on Europe so he was dealing with two competing factions in his party.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
Here's some help for you.
The Conservative majority of 21 seats was gradually eroded
Thanks for being so patronising but you said that John Major "never really had a working majority" which is a lie, or an untruth if you prefer it dressed better. He had one for 5 years after the 1992 election.
If he had an effective working majority why did he suffer six House of Commons defeats in five years? Two more than Thatcher had in eleven years or Blair had in ten.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
Come back in two years.
Are you telling me to go away?
Thanks for the welcome.
Not at all. When you write "everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out" one bit of objective data you have overlooked is the date of the General Election - which may be as far away as two years.
I cannot conceive of circumstances where the general election is before May 2024.
Well, not unless Boris has been beavering away in the depths of Downing Street with test tubes and petri dishes and emerges next week with a cure for cancer. Even then, 52% of the population would demand 20 years of results to prove he wasn't lying...
- someone complains bitterly that a particular Burger KIng has gone vegan, someone else says "It's just like George Orwell's 1994 [sic]" and someone replies: "Yeah, I remember that chapter when Winston was forced to go to BK when he really really wanted to go to McDonalds. Harrowing scene, simply harrowing."
Burger King affably responded "Thanks for the PR!"
As someone who knows very little about the subject I was surprised that honey doesn't count as vegan food because the bees are exploited.
The effect on pay rises and business investment will be interesting.
And despite the best employment situation since anyone can remember there will be endless thousands rushing off to get themselves £50k in debt doing totally unsuitable 'university' courses.
Despite all the negatvity on here about the economic position, the employment situation is this Country is remarkable.
Its a good time to be skilled working class northerner.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
" I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary."
Err - how does the 2nd sentence follow logically from the first? Does it also follow that if the Police/CPS don't proceed because there isn't a decent chance of conviction - that then the evidence is crucial?
Election night '92 the feeling was very much that the Tories were back for a comfortable 5 more years. That they were unable to hold themselves together was due to incompetence, poor behaviour, and their own internal contradictions. I began to plot to leave the country for a bit.
I remember it vividly. Night at the opera, with pink champagne on ice to (reluctantly) toast Prime Minister Kinnock. "Hung Parliament" said the exit polls.....then things got interesting.....
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
Come back in two years.
Are you telling me to go away?
Thanks for the welcome.
Not at all. When you write "everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out" one bit of objective data you have overlooked is the date of the General Election - which may be as far away as two years.
I cannot conceive of circumstances where the general election is before May 2024.
Well, not unless Boris has been beavering away in the depths of Downing Street with test tubes and petri dishes and emerges next week with a cure for cancer. Even then, 52% of the population would demand 20 years of results to prove he wasn't lying...
I think most of us would want proof he wasn't lying. I mean if he came out and said he hadn't found a cure I would be tempted to think he had.
Khan has been completely ruined by this conviction, it is very bad. If you want to know the hell that people convicted of child sex offences go through, then look at some of the discussions on 'unlock'. Their lives are barely worth living. This state of affairs is certainly not civilisation marching forward to a state of enlightenment.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
Come back in two years.
Are you telling me to go away?
Thanks for the welcome.
I think the point being made is that we are barely half way through the conservative's term of office and there are so many variables and so much time before the next GE that, while you may be correct, it is far too soon to be certain
It is a sobering thought that HMG have had Brexit, covid and war in Europe all in just over 2 years and the issues particularly with the covid backlog and the war are so complex, that at present they seem insurmountable for most any government in recent history
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
The worst mistake Major made for the Tories was being surprisingly good by winning the 1992 election. If he had lost the Tories would probably have been back in 96/97.
It was certainly an election to lose. It all but ensured the landslides of 97, 2001 etc.
The Murdoch press decided the 1992 and 97 election, as ever, and they will play an important part in the 2024 election, if they were to do a character assassination on Johnson, like they so predictably do on every Labour leader, he would be a dead man walking, but instead they will bang on about Starmer being Dull, and how we need a leader, to make us feel good, or some such Garbage, although they were quite happy to back the ultimate Dull man, Major v Kinnock. In my opinion, the 2024 election is wide open, but I still favour a narrow Tory victory
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
He still has to lose some 40 seats before he gets to the point where Major was, going into the 1997 election. The Major Government felt like it was spending its final couple of years bed-blocking a Blair Government. This doesn't remotely feel like that.
The worst mistake Major made for the Tories was being surprisingly good by winning the 1992 election. If he had lost the Tories would probably have been back in 96/97.
Possibly.
The 1997 general election would have likely been Heseltine or Portillo v a PM Kinnock with a small majority or minority government.
That would have been much closer than the 1997 landslide Blair got v PM Major
Agree. We are now getting into real hypotheticals but Kinnock would have had 4 to 5 years of government to defend and I would rate Heseltine or Portillo over Kinnock. But you are right it would not have been a landslide on either side.
There are of course two issues here - is Blunt entitled to express his opinion, and is it sensible? The answer to the first is surely yes, and as I said yesterday I give him some credit for expressing it when it was obviously politically unwise. The answer to the second looks a solid no, for the reasons that Cyclefree sets out with her usual cogency.
Should the Conservative Party take action against him? It depends whether his "clarification" expected today makes clear that he is not trivialising statutory rape of a child by a much older man (I believe that the police usually look the other way when a 16-year-old sleeps with a 15-year-old). If he were to confirm that he meant that it's no big deal, then I think he has no place in a serious party. If he clarifies that the offence is extremely serious and he is merely expressing incredulity that his friend was guilty of it, then I think that's not a political issue but a matter of judgment, and if MPs were thrown out of their parties for mistakes of judgment then, well...
It's more than a matter of judgment - it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system - totally ignoring the (horrendous) crime an MP shouldn't be calling the decision of a Jury into doubt because he doesn't like the end result.
And while he said he attended some of the case - as he didn't attend all of it he really isn't in a position to pass comment on the bits he didn't hear.
Jurors are on average corruptible intimidatable and dim, and I don't think there is any duty on anybody not to attack the system in general, or isolated errors in particular. They happen. Not that I think there was one in this case, but someone claiming there was is not something to bloviate unduly about
It must be terrifying to be innocent and have your future and reputation (and safety) in the hands of jurors. I'm not saying this MP guy is innocent - I've not followed the case and don't know the specifics of what he is charged with. But as I understand it the police (and CPS) proceed with a case on the basis that there is a decent chance of conviction. This means that actual evidence is secondary.
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
I don't think you're right. The CPS do decide whether to prosecute on the basis of whether there is a decent chance of conviction, yes. But that depends on the quality of the evidence, so when you say the actual evidence is secondary, that's wrong. And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Have a look at the Roger Kearney murder conviction. The CPS decided to prosecute on no evidence other than he was having an affair with the murder victim and he was found guilty. He cannot appeal his conviction as there is no prosecution evidence to appeal against. His wife even gave him a full alibi for the night of the murder, yet he has spent the last 12 years in Prison. There are dozens of similar murder convictions based on no or very little evidence.
When Blunt has a pop at the criminal justice system by effectively saying "My friend isn't a wrong 'un, the system has got this wrong", it is worth bearing in mind that he does have the inside track: from May 2010 to September 2012 he was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice.
So if the system is broken, Crispin - who should we blame? You must know.
I suspect the voters of Reigate will have a different choice of Conservative candidate by 2024.
Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice reads like a very important role.
This is all so reminiscent of 1992-7. The Conservative Party have pressed the self-destruct button. Like then, the PM has lost control of his MPs and they are in demob happy mode: shooting off their mouths no matter how inappropriate.
Dirty sleazy tories. Gonna get a kickin'.
It feels very different.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
"and they have BBC editorial control" - do you really believe this?
I think the BBC tries really hard to be balanced. This usually means the more extreme someone views are the more they are likely to think the BBC is biased because it does not represent their views. Can you give some examples of the editorial control? And please not the 'Johnson at the cenotaph mistake'.
I am no fan of the BBC. I think its far too metropolitan elite, and has no concept of the population out of the bigger cities. You only need watch Countryfile to see this. You will learn more in 5 minutes of Clarksons Farm than you will in a year of Countryfile. But even with this, I think they try damn hard to be as balanced as possible, especially in terms of the political parties.
What do you think was the BBC's motivation to edit out (clumsily) a reference to Brexit in this piece?
Comments
There’s a bit that can be done about COVID in terms of better public health measures to reduce the impact infections are still having on the economy.
There’s lots that can be done in terms of supporting people through economic disruption.
Youngster in back of car on way home from school.
Parent; How was school today?
“Great! I’m a tresbien!”
(Modern Parenting moment) “And how do you feel about that?”
“Happy”
“We were learning French today and I’m tresbien.”
Some Constituencies Do 'Ave 'Em.
(Or some constituencies do keep 'em long after it's wise to do so.)
For reasons only known to themselves.
It's probably because it's close to Tarquin's daddy's office so he can get a lift home in time for dinner.
As usual plod just stands there and stares. They don't seem to do anything unless you upset an oligarch or have the temerity to break the speed limit.
Or that it underwrites marine commerce, a major source of pollution.
So they think it’s bad.
Remind them that it also took the wealth of lots of rich people in the underwriting scandal and they’ll probably bugger off back to their seven bed mansions in Surrey again.
Sadly, some will forever regard them as evil.
However, if Blunt had listened to all the evidence, then he is perfectly free to give his opinion -- whether in agreement with the jury or not.
As for "it's a fundamental attack on our Jury system", that is just ludicrous over-reaction.
The jury system is not like the red squirrel, meriting entitlement to special status.
Zillions of people over the years have questioned the verdict of a jury -- think of all the celebrities who queried the Hanratty verdict from John & Yoko to Ludovic Kennedy, and they were ultimately proved wrong.
(EDIT, oh no, I am in agreement with @IshmaelZ )
Or is it because they have nothing else really useful to do and it's the Easter holidays?
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1513788608850841602
Since the vote much has gone wrong. We shouldn't rehearse the dreadful history of 2016-2019, but it was not an edifying period for government, and arguably it led to the situation we have now - an awful PM, who lies as he breathes, effectively getting away with it because he has a large majority.
Like it or not membership of the EU had been divisive in the UK for many years, and something needed to be done. The decisions taken after the event may ultimately prove to be poor ones, and future governments are at liberty to change tack, and i am sure they will.
“On reflection I have decided to retract my statement defending Imran Ahmad Khan. I am sorry that my defence of him has been a cause of significant upset and concern not least to victims of sexual offences. It was not my intention to do this.
To be clear I do not condone any form of abuse and I strongly believe in the independence and integrity of the justice system.
It is a particularly difficult time for LGBT+ rights across the world and my statement risks distracting the APPG for Global LGBT+ Rights from its important purpose. I have today offered the officers my resignation so a new Chair can be found to continue the work of the group with full force.”
https://order-order.com/2022/04/12/crispin-blunt-withdraws-imran-ahmad-khan-statement/
Well, it is clear from Hodges' biography of Alan Turing that Turing was not primarily interested in men -- and Turing has ended up on the £ 50 note.
It is clear from Joe Orton's diaries that he had no qualms about sex with 9 year old Arab boys.
It is true that Khan has not constructed a Test as subtle as Turing's or a play as great as What the Butler Saw
Khan is just a rather mediocre Tory MP. It is really this that we cannot forgive
I'm sure there are cases (maybe not this one) where the police and CPS think that a jury may convict because of the type of offence (believe the accuser) with no other evidence whatsoever (again - I'm not referring to this case) because they think that a jury will act out of prejudice given the nature of the charge and the notoriety of the accused.
This is worrying if true. Maybe it isn't.
The LOTO is no Blair (which may not be a bad thing). The Major Administration lost control of the media, which is unheard of for the Conservative Party. Johnson still has most newspapers, the Tories are conducting a great online ground offensive and they have BBC editorial control, something they have never had before. Labour have completely lost Scotland and the LDs are much weakened which means there is no hope for a non-Conservative Government without unacceptable conditions set by the SNP.
I repeat it is wholly different, and Johnson still has the whip hand. Whether he will the other side of economic Armageddon is anyone's guess.
I think the BBC tries really hard to be balanced. This usually means the more extreme someone views are the more they are likely to think the BBC is biased because it does not represent their views. Can you give some examples of the editorial control? And please not the 'Johnson at the cenotaph mistake'.
I am no fan of the BBC. I think its far too metropolitan elite, and has no concept of the population out of the bigger cities. You only need watch Countryfile to see this. You will learn more in 5 minutes of Clarksons Farm than you will in a year of Countryfile. But even with this, I think they try damn hard to be as balanced as possible, especially in terms of the political parties.
Labour have not "completely lost" Scotland. It is simply a great untruth to state that Labour are not improving their position in Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
I grant you that their position is not as it was back in 1997 but it does not need to be. There will be no such thing as "unacceptable conditions" set by the SNP. They will simply ask for and receive a 2nd Referendum on Scottish independence in exchange for a confidence and supply. It is not rocket science and Labour will be fine with that because the condition will be that Labour can campaign for the union. The SNP will be happy to accept.
The Liberal Democrats are in a strong position as challengers in key areas that will severely dent the Conservatives especially around West and South-West London and Surrey. With Labour's blind eye support they will decapitate important Conservative MP's.
Latest UK polling yesterday had Labour with an 8% lead. At the last General Election the Conservatives won by 11.5%. This is a huge shift in British public opinion.
Everything objective says the Conservatives are on the way out.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2022-04-08/balance-of-power-gen-petraeus-on-next-phase-of-war-radio
Imran Khan MP and Dr Jamie Wallis MP and Rob Roberts MP are features of our Parliamentary system.
A big win normally produces some surprise constituency gains. The candidates for those seats are not usually serious individuals -- because no-one with any sense thought they would ever win in the first place.
Cf Jaraid O'Mara, the Clegg-Slayer in Sheffield Hallam, also now fighting off sexual harassment allegations.
Still, I am inclined to cut someone a lot of slack for Clegg-icide. Put O'Mara on the £50 note.
There is some revisionism present here and it is inaccurate revisionism
Is APPG yet another acronym that dare not speak its name?
Which is why it's not happening.
Come back in two years.
Job vacancies 1,288,000
The effect on pay rises and business investment will be interesting.
And despite the best employment situation since anyone can remember there will be endless thousands rushing off to get themselves £50k in debt doing totally unsuitable 'university' courses.
The Conservative majority of 21 seats was gradually eroded by a string of by-election defeats as well as the defection of one MP to Labour, and by the turn of 1997 the Conservatives were without a majority in the House of Commons.
Thanks for the welcome.
https://twitter.com/DominiqueTaegon/status/1512821664719024130
- someone complains bitterly that a particular Burger KIng has gone vegan, someone else says "It's just like George Orwell's 1994 [sic]" and someone replies: "Yeah, I remember that chapter when Winston was forced to go to BK when he really really wanted to go to McDonalds. Harrowing scene, simply harrowing."
Burger King affably responded "Thanks for the PR!"
And what will happen if the SNP win? Labour lose "their" Scottish seats forever. Bye bye Starmer.
And what happens if the SNP lose? I'm sure they would happily continue co-operatively working with Labour after their dreams are destroyed. Bye Bye Starmer.
It's a marriage made in heaven. What could possibly go wrong!
The area of the economy that really doesn’t get enough attention from the left (or the right) are the international commodity traders. Barely regulated, mostly private and incorporated in low tax jurisdictions, foreign policy power brokers in their own right and systemic to our economies. And often with morals in the gutter.
Zelensky wrote to the Swiss based traders to ask them to stop buying Russian oil products, as it was funding genocide. Trafigura’s response can be loosely paraphrased as “meh”. Totsa / Total are seemingly still all in on Russia, which should be to Macron’s eternal shame.
In comparison the British government should be fiercely defending the likes of Shell and Bp, which are not only among the fastest of the oil groups to try and transition to low carbon but also in lockstep with national interest.
And on your last point, if there is no solid evidence the judge will direct the jury to acquit, regardless of any prejudice they hold.
Only if the Tories have most seats in a hung parliament does Starmer have to offer the SNP indyref2 to get into power
That they were unable to hold themselves together was due to incompetence, poor behaviour, and their own internal contradictions.
I began to plot to leave the country for a bit.
The 1997 general election would have likely been Heseltine or Portillo v a PM Kinnock with a small majority or minority government.
That would have been much closer than the 1997 landslide Blair got v PM Major
Well, not unless Boris has been beavering away in the depths of Downing Street with test tubes and petri dishes and emerges next week with a cure for cancer. Even then, 52% of the population would demand 20 years of results to prove he wasn't lying...
Not so good to be a young graduate in the south.
Err - how does the 2nd sentence follow logically from the first?
Does it also follow that if the Police/CPS don't proceed because there isn't a decent chance of conviction - that then the evidence is crucial?
It is a sobering thought that HMG have had Brexit, covid and war in Europe all in just over 2 years and the issues particularly with the covid backlog and the war are so complex, that at present they seem insurmountable for most any government in recent history
Nobody is telling you to go away to be fair
we need a leader, to make us feel good, or some such Garbage, although they were quite happy to back the ultimate Dull man, Major v Kinnock. In my opinion, the 2024 election is wide open, but I still favour a narrow Tory victory
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8202808.lawyer-gives-jury-a-list-detailing-why-they-have-to-find-kearney-not-guilty/
The police are often just after a conviction, they are not particularly worried about whether the person is guilty or not
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
16h
Keir Starmer Approval Rating (10 Apr):
Approve: 27% (-4)
Disapprove: 32% (+1)
Net: -5% (-5)
Changes +/- 3 Apr
@jrf_uk
This month, our basic out-of-work benefit will experience its biggest drop in value in fifty years.
The Chancellor must increase benefits in line with inflation as an immediate first step to protect people from hardship.
https://twitter.com/jrf_uk/status/1513789058987835396
BJO you need to lie down mate
https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1513092843803402246?s=20&t=Zn21Yk2vHhK6jgATF2iOYw