"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
I don't agree:
- many democracies manage to protect human rights without being members of the ECHR. - we somehow had human rights before we joined. - many of the recent improvements in human rights did not come from the ECHR, but from our democratically elected government, sometimes acting with popular opinion, sometimes (e.g. abolition of the death penalty, legalisation of homosexuality, gay marriage) against it.
But it's nice to have certain fundamentals protected by something higher and wider than the individual nation state. And if you haven't got that it's doubly crucial to have a strong and independent domestic judiciary. 2 lines of defence against capricious populist government.
Jesus did Bart call Johnson a man of principle, the man who wrote two columns on Brexit and decided at the last minute
QTWAIN.
I said that Starmer has no more principles than Johnson. That was a comment on Starmer, not praise for Johnson.
Bart we both know this is nonsense.
No, we don't. Your beloved Starmer was willing to serve in Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, while everyone decent quit it, in order to further his own career. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to be elected in 2017 saying that Brexit must happen and there'll be no second referendum, then once elected did everything he could to prevent Brexit while saying there must be a second referendum and Labour must campaign for remain. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer was willing to campaign in 2020 saying he would "unite" the Labour Party and continue with Corbynite policies, only to jettison them and expel Corbyn as soon as it was convenient in order to further his sole agenda which is to become PM. That was the extent of his "principles".
Starmer is Labour's answer to Boris Johnson, but better dress sense and less charisma. He has no more principles than Boris, he'll say anything, do anything, and screw over anyone in order to become PM. He hasn't got an iota of principle or integrity beyond that, just like Boris.
No we had our Johnson, that was Jeremy Corbyn.
You know deep down Starmer has more principles and integrity than Johnson. I don't know why you don't just admit it.
No, Corbyn was nothing like Johnson, Corbyn actually had principles - bad ones which he hadn't changed since the 1970s, but he had them nonetheless. Starmer is Johnson, he is a blank slate when it comes to principles and will wear whatever principles are best for his career today.
You know deep down Starmer has no principles or integrity whatsoever.
But I'll humour you for a minute. Please tell me what principles Starmer has and how long he has had them for? And how long can we expect them to last for, if they become electorally inconvenient?
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
I'd be happy to discuss the ECHR if we didn't have this Government, which will happily bring back hanging or any sort of human rights abuses if it gets them re-elected.
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
Except I've been attacking this government for nearly a year now.
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
Except I've been attacking this government for nearly a year now.
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
You ignored the fundamental point.
When we leave the ECHR you will find something new to attack.
Where do we finish? Never be party to anything with another country? So no trade deals, no trade, let's build a big wall and live off the land
If Keir Starmer was to get a fine and then resigned, surely that really does make Boris Johnson's position as PM and leader of the Conservatives untenable? How many Ministers and MPs outside the usual suspects are going to be prepared to hit the airways in defence of his premiership let alone in their constituencies? The outcome of the Durham police investigation is as politically fraught for Boris Johnson as it is for Keir Starmer.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 10 mins 35 secs and can't stop laughing.
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
Except I've been attacking this government for nearly a year now.
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
You ignored the fundamental point.
When we leave the ECHR you will find something new to attack.
Where do we finish? Never be party to anything with another country? So no trade deals, no trade, let's build a big wall and live off the land
We don't finish. Life is always evolving.
There will always be something to criticise, because perfection is for fairytales, or religion, not for evolution.
We can have trade deals, but trade deals should never be binding upon Parliament without a way out. Any and all trade deals ought to have a termination clause that we should be prepared to invoke, if they get in the way of democracy.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
Just not fascist enough ? Looking at this, it seems he falls down only in not being 100% behind the 2016 insurrection, or anti semitic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crenshaw
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
Presumably you want to exit the WTO, the World Court and the ICC as well.
MP Nick Fletcher schools letter says trans 'nothing more than a phase'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311 A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency. Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same. His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle". One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received". It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health. The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment. His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
Entitled to his opinion. I agree general societal opinion and treatment of people can negatively affect others, but is a lone MP setting out his view, even if he would like others to have the same view, really harmful? If it is, then the corollary is anyone who doesn't agree should never be able to say so, and surely it is better for us to know what people think even if disagree with them?
I also find it very difficult to take seriously boasts about British justice protecting human rights, from loyalists to a government that exults in breaking the law.
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
Except I've been attacking this government for nearly a year now.
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
If another country attacked Spain, we would be bound by our NATO obligations to come to Spain’s aid — no vote in Parliament required. So, does your position mean we should leave NATO?
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
24 mins: "Goes in for an ugly contest and they say 'No professionals'".
MP Nick Fletcher schools letter says trans 'nothing more than a phase'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311 A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency. Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same. His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle". One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received". It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health. The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment. His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
Entitled to his opinion. I agree general societal opinion and treatment of people can negatively affect others, but is a lone MP setting out his view, even if he would like others to have the same view, really harmful? If it is, then the corollary is anyone who doesn't agree should never be able to say so, and surely it is better for us to know what people think even if disagree with them?
It's weird that this might be the majority opinion in the country, and almost surely the majority opinion among parents of young children, but that people are terrified of saying anything against it.
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
I do not agree with proposals to leave the ECHR, it seems to be proposed generally off the back of discontent with specific decisions (with the philosophical reasoning following later) and is disproportionate to address the stated problem of lack of regard for limitations of the judicial role and respect for democratic politics/
Nevertheless I do think suggesting it would be the end of human rights (albeit with the caveat 'as we know them) is overdone, as it implies we had no genuine human rights until the ECHR existed, and that makes it much easier for proponents of such a withdrawal appear more reasonable.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
24 mins: "Goes in for an ugly contest and they say 'No professionals'".
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
Brilliant.
There are moments when he is ahead of the audience, who are processing the joke.
"When in doubt wait and then wait some more," and then he laughs.
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
Except I've been attacking this government for nearly a year now.
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
You ignored the fundamental point.
When we leave the ECHR you will find something new to attack.
Where do we finish? Never be party to anything with another country? So no trade deals, no trade, let's build a big wall and live off the land
We don't finish. Life is always evolving.
There will always be something to criticise, because perfection is for fairytales, or religion, not for evolution.
We can have trade deals, but trade deals should never be binding upon Parliament without a way out. Any and all trade deals ought to have a termination clause that we should be prepared to invoke, if they get in the way of democracy.
We can leave the ECHR if we want. If a party makes that a manifesto pledge and wins the election, then fair enough. Democracy respected.
The actual position we’re in now is a Government who doesn’t like one very minor decision and desperate for some positive headlines stirring up jingoism. What’s getting in the way of democracy is a failing Government, not the ECHR.
MP Nick Fletcher schools letter says trans 'nothing more than a phase'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311 A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency. Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same. His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle". One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received". It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health. The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment. His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
Entitled to his opinion. I agree general societal opinion and treatment of people can negatively affect others, but is a lone MP setting out his view, even if he would like others to have the same view, really harmful? If it is, then the corollary is anyone who doesn't agree should never be able to say so, and surely it is better for us to know what people think even if disagree with them?
But a blanket assertion that trans is "nothing more than a phase" is a falsehood not an opinion. Plus he's saying this to schools from a position of authority. It's not great imo.
MP Nick Fletcher schools letter says trans 'nothing more than a phase'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311 A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency. Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same. His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle". One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received". It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health. The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment. His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
Entitled to his opinion. I agree general societal opinion and treatment of people can negatively affect others, but is a lone MP setting out his view, even if he would like others to have the same view, really harmful? If it is, then the corollary is anyone who doesn't agree should never be able to say so, and surely it is better for us to know what people think even if disagree with them?
An MP writing to schools in this manner is not ‘being entitled to his opinion’. It is being an utter dick.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
24 mins: "Goes in for an ugly contest and they say 'No professionals'".
Bob is immortal.
And the ugly comment was about Peter Sellers father as part of a long piece about how Sellers got started.
MP Nick Fletcher schools letter says trans 'nothing more than a phase'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61842311 A Conservative MP has sent a letter describing children's gender identity doubts as "nothing more than a phase" to every school in his constituency. Nick Fletcher, MP for Don Valley, South Yorkshire, said he wanted to "clearly set out his position" on the issue and asked head teachers to do the same. His letter states that "boys are boys and girls are girls", and the media glamorises a "transgender lifestyle". One school said the letter was "neither helpful nor positively received". It was also criticised by councillors and the former boss of an LGBTQ+ youth charity, who said the comments "deny the existence" of transgender teens and could harm their mental health. The BBC has approached Mr Fletcher for comment. His letter asks schools to confirm their position on the matter …
Entitled to his opinion. I agree general societal opinion and treatment of people can negatively affect others, but is a lone MP setting out his view, even if he would like others to have the same view, really harmful? If it is, then the corollary is anyone who doesn't agree should never be able to say so, and surely it is better for us to know what people think even if disagree with them?
Does feel a bit like lot what they used to say about gay people thirty years ago.
If Keir Starmer was to get a fine and then resigned, surely that really does make Boris Johnson's position as PM and leader of the Conservatives untenable? How many Ministers and MPs outside the usual suspects are going to be prepared to hit the airways in defence of his premiership let alone in their constituencies? The outcome of the Durham police investigation is as politically fraught for Boris Johnson as it is for Keir Starmer.
"How many Ministers and MPs outside the usual suspects are going to be prepared to hit the airways in defence of his premiership let alone in their constituencies? "
All of the usual suspects - Mogg, Nadine, Shapps, Braverman, Lewis, Spencer etc etc.
All desperate as they know they would not have been given control of the house of commons toilets let alone a cabinet post under any other PM.
NEW: If the Tories lose Wakefield on Thursday, one reason will be that women are set to vote 2 to 1 against them. Why are women in Britain becoming more left wing – and why didn't it happen sooner?
NEW: If the Tories lose Wakefield on Thursday, one reason will be that women are set to vote 2 to 1 against them. Why are women in Britain becoming more left wing – and why didn't it happen sooner?
NEW: If the Tories lose Wakefield on Thursday, one reason will be that women are set to vote 2 to 1 against them. Why are women in Britain becoming more left wing – and why didn't it happen sooner?
I've been taking an interest in this for ages. [Read the article earlier]. Basically when most women were housewives they were more Conservative than men because there's something inherently conservative about being a housewife (I suspect).
NEW: If the Tories lose Wakefield on Thursday, one reason will be that women are set to vote 2 to 1 against them. Why are women in Britain becoming more left wing – and why didn't it happen sooner?
I've been taking an interest in this for ages. [Read the article earlier]. Basically when most women were housewives they were more Conservative than men because there's something inherently conservative about being a housewife (I suspect).
I think it more about women being more risk averse. Johnson is happy to take risks, Starmer is risk averse. So women will lean towards the risk averse Starmer.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
24 mins: "Goes in for an ugly contest and they say 'No professionals'".
Bob is immortal.
And the ugly comment was about Peter Sellers father as part of a long piece about how Sellers got started.
Top stuff.
The most well known Monkhouse quip is that when he started out and said he wanted to be a comedian they laughed at him - but then he said they are not laughing now.
If Keir Starmer was to get a fine and then resigned, surely that really does make Boris Johnson's position as PM and leader of the Conservatives untenable? How many Ministers and MPs outside the usual suspects are going to be prepared to hit the airways in defence of his premiership let alone in their constituencies? The outcome of the Durham police investigation is as politically fraught for Boris Johnson as it is for Keir Starmer.
I think he'd be fine? They'd go out and say the party voted to keep him because of his wonderful achievements X, Y and Z, and what the voters really hate is hypocrisy. Partisan considerations, aside watching Kier get hoist by his own petard would be fun, and the media would mostly help Boris.
NEW: If the Tories lose Wakefield on Thursday, one reason will be that women are set to vote 2 to 1 against them. Why are women in Britain becoming more left wing – and why didn't it happen sooner?
It might be because the Conservatives unlike the Labour party managed to elect two female Conservative leaders and PMs in the last 40 years, and then the Conservatives elected Boris Johnson so mystery solved.....
When we leave the ECHR the Brexit fandom will be onto something else.
The reality is that we have a crap Government which doesn't know how to, or is unwilling, to help normal people. Instead they blame somebody else.
This will go on until they lose and lose big.
Honestly what a depressing time we live in. CoL and homelessness going up and we pick a fight with ECHR.
Perhaps, but the whole point of Brexit was to take back control and to have the government we elect set the law.
The Council of Europe isn't the EU, its worse and independent of the EU, but it does mean that the government we elect can't fully set the law; while simultaneously doing fuck all to protect human rights since this is an institution that took money to whitewash Vladimir Putin's Russia as meeting European human rights standards until February of this year.
When we leave this you will attack something else, because you will never be able to take responsibility for anything. The problem is always somewhere else.
Except I've been attacking this government for nearly a year now.
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
If another country attacked Spain, we would be bound by our NATO obligations to come to Spain’s aid — no vote in Parliament required. So, does your position mean we should leave NATO?
Article 5 only commits a member to "such action as it deems necessary" so a member can legally decide that no action is necessary.
If Keir Starmer was to get a fine and then resigned, surely that really does make Boris Johnson's position as PM and leader of the Conservatives untenable? How many Ministers and MPs outside the usual suspects are going to be prepared to hit the airways in defence of his premiership let alone in their constituencies? The outcome of the Durham police investigation is as politically fraught for Boris Johnson as it is for Keir Starmer.
I think he'd be fine? They'd go out and say the party voted to keep him because of his wonderful achievements X, Y and Z, and what the voters really hate is hypocrisy. Partisan considerations, aside watching Kier get hoist by his own petard would be fun, and the media would mostly help Boris.
Hi Edmund, I have to disagree. Boris was already on a shoogle peg as we say in Scotland, not just among his opponents, but also with Conservative MPs and voters due to partygate. And while he may have survived that 1922 No Confidence Vote due to the promises he may have made to those on the Government pay load, he has lost his backbenchers.
Keir Starmer resigning on a point of principle if he is fined sees him putting party before personal ambition, and that really helps the Labour party while Boris remaining in post really damages the Westminster Conservative party if they continue to prop him up despite this. Basically, the Labour party (whose rules usually makes removing failing leaders really difficult) gets the chance to replace the charisma free grey suit with possible a far more electable fresh alternative while the Conservative party limps on with a flawed and damaged PM dragging down the party. I just cannot see some of the ambitious future Conservative leadership hopefuls in Cabinet and on the backbenches sitting back as spectators as the Conservatives head to Opposition in the polls over the next two years.
I still think that Boris has no intention of hanging around to fight another GE, its just a matter of the Westminster Conservative party finally growing a pair of balls and removing him sooner at a time of their choosing rather than at a time of his chosing when the damage of his behaviour has caused irreparable damage that wipes out their chances of being re-elected anytime soon after the next GE. That 1997 GE result was devasting.
Seriously. Take the time to watch a master in action. A dying Bob Monkhouse utterly at ease with his fate and what he had gifted to the world. Pay it forward. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFrPs_80gQ
I randomly started at about 11 mins and can't stop laughing.
I'm also (re)watching. Keep going. Bob is a Dead Man. And knows it. And is in full confessional.
24 mins: "Goes in for an ugly contest and they say 'No professionals'".
Bob is immortal.
And the ugly comment was about Peter Sellers father as part of a long piece about how Sellers got started.
"Our continued participation in the European Convention on Human Rights therefore means that we have two parallel and potentially conflicting judicial systems for giving effect to human rights: a domestic one which respects the proper limits of the judicial role and the proper claims of democratic politics, and an international one which has little regard for either. Immigration and deportation are sensitive political issues on which there are strong democratic pressures for tighter control. While the present situation subsists, they will be the flashpoints of the future.
It is too soon to think of withdrawing from the convention, although the government currently plans legislation to reduce the influence of the Strasbourg court in the UK. One thing, however, is clear. Withdrawing from the convention or modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation without submitting to the expansive and self-promoting edicts of the Strasbourg court."
I always roll my eyes when I hear that human rights can be protected through domestic legislation. Any democratically elected government with a majority in the house of commons would come under irresistible pressure to remove minority rights that are unpopular or politically inconvenient at any point in time. It is clear to me that leaving the ECHR is the end of human rights, as we know them. We'd end up with a malleable, ever changing set of rights that follow changing public whims. Some people may want this, which is a view I respect; but the idea that human rights are safe if we leave the ECHR is complete nonsense.
I think that's absurd.
How do you think human rights are protected in New Zealand, Australia or Canada? And how on earth did the UK formulate its Bill of Rights centuries earlier without the ECHR?
Fucking LOL. That lucky lass will have some yarns for her grandkids. I like how the CGS is doing surprised pikachu face that the Maroon Machine would ever do such a thing.
Thanks to whoever posted the Monkhouse link. Wonderful start to Father’s Day watching that in bed with a cuppa. Still waiting for the chambermaid to walk in…
Comments
You know deep down Starmer has no principles or integrity whatsoever.
But I'll humour you for a minute. Please tell me what principles Starmer has and how long he has had them for? And how long can we expect them to last for, if they become electorally inconvenient?
But when the government of the day can hide behind another institution claiming that is the one preventing it from acting, that is problematic. Not acting because we the voters don't want them to act, that's one thing, not doing so because an external institution is saying no, isn't OK.
External institutions undermining democracy is a problem. I have an absolutist fundamental belief in democracy.
When we leave the ECHR you will find something new to attack.
Where do we finish? Never be party to anything with another country? So no trade deals, no trade, let's build a big wall and live off the land
There will always be something to criticise, because perfection is for fairytales, or religion, not for evolution.
We can have trade deals, but trade deals should never be binding upon Parliament without a way out. Any and all trade deals ought to have a termination clause that we should be prepared to invoke, if they get in the way of democracy.
Dan Crenshaw & Staff Assaulted by Right Wingers Shouting ‘Eyepatch McCain’ and Saying He Should be ‘Hung for Treason’
https://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-dan-crenshaw-staff-physically-assaulted-by-right-wing-attackers-shouting-eyepatch-mccain-at-tx-gop/
Just not fascist enough ?
Looking at this, it seems he falls down only in not being 100% behind the 2016 insurrection, or anti semitic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crenshaw
Nevertheless I do think suggesting it would be the end of human rights (albeit with the caveat 'as we know them) is overdone, as it implies we had no genuine human rights until the ECHR existed, and that makes it much easier for proponents of such a withdrawal appear more reasonable.
There are moments when he is ahead of the audience, who are processing the joke.
"When in doubt wait and then wait some more," and then he laughs.
The actual position we’re in now is a Government who doesn’t like one very minor decision and desperate for some positive headlines stirring up jingoism. What’s getting in the way of democracy is a failing Government, not the ECHR.
It is being an utter dick.
Top stuff.
My opinion, is, who cares? Let people live
All of the usual suspects - Mogg, Nadine, Shapps, Braverman, Lewis, Spencer etc etc.
All desperate as they know they would not have been given control of the house of commons toilets let alone a cabinet post under any other PM.
https://twitter.com/tomhcalver/status/1538223421716414464
But there is only half a year left. So does that mean a 2x27% chance he won't survive the next 12 months?
Keir Starmer resigning on a point of principle if he is fined sees him putting party before personal ambition, and that really helps the Labour party while Boris remaining in post really damages the Westminster Conservative party if they continue to prop him up despite this. Basically, the Labour party (whose rules usually makes removing failing leaders really difficult) gets the chance to replace the charisma free grey suit with possible a far more electable fresh alternative while the Conservative party limps on with a flawed and damaged PM dragging down the party. I just cannot see some of the ambitious future Conservative leadership hopefuls in Cabinet and on the backbenches sitting back as spectators as the Conservatives head to Opposition in the polls over the next two years.
I still think that Boris has no intention of hanging around to fight another GE, its just a matter of the Westminster Conservative party finally growing a pair of balls and removing him sooner at a time of their choosing rather than at a time of his chosing when the damage of his behaviour has caused irreparable damage that wipes out their chances of being re-elected anytime soon after the next GE. That 1997 GE result was devasting.
How do you think human rights are protected in New Zealand, Australia or Canada? And how on earth did the UK formulate its Bill of Rights centuries earlier without the ECHR?
This isn't Putin's Russia.
Fucking LOL. That lucky lass will have some yarns for her grandkids. I like how the CGS is doing surprised pikachu face that the Maroon Machine would ever do such a thing.