Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Who's told you to go and use a stand pipe?
Has this been a thing except in 1976?
Remember, we are only a month and two days from official autumn :-) .
Give it time.
We'll see. You got me - I had not noticed the "2023".
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
"In the 1950s and early 1960s, Britain had three consecutive Tory prime ministers — Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home — all of whom had gone to the same school (Eton, naturally).
But after Labour's grammar school leader, Harold Wilson, won the 1964 general election, there wasn't another public-school prime minister until Tony Blair (Fettes, the Scottish Eton) won by a landslide in 1997.
For a time — those 33 years between 1964 and 1997 — it really seemed as if a new meritocratic age was dawning.
It even meant a wee lad from a Paisley council estate (me) could become editor of The Sunday Times, one of the world's most prestigious newspapers. It wasn't particularly unusual back then: the father of my legendary recent predecessor, Harry Evans, had been a train driver. The abolition of grammar schools was a setback. Public schools enjoyed a resurgence."
Shows the ignorance of the writer. Fettes is your bog standard post-Arnoldian foundation. And other schools were also called by that name. IIRC much of the current usage of that expression dates from one writer about Mr Blair.
Does Neil acknowledge that journalism was a non graduate job back in his day, starting out? Some had degrees, but most began as a trainee out of school at their local paper.
The Times is saying Rees Mogg is being lined up for Levelling Up secretary. That, surely, is too much for Labour to ask for. And Braverman to the Home Office is tricky. Is there another qualified Tory lawyer in Parliament willing to debase the law to the extent she has as AG? If not, surely she has to stay in place to provide the ingoing cover Truss will need to tear up the Protocol, stick with Rwanda, bypass Parliament etc.
Rees Mogg as 'Levelling Up secretary' That's the best joke ever. Could they bring back the guy with the moat and put him in charge of Housing ?
Even Boris Johnson didnt trust JRM to be in the Cabinet until he made up a Brexit opportunities gig, ie not trusting him with a department. Truss would be very unwise to promote someone even Boris knew was not up to it.
She has plenty to choose from, picking JRM would be absurd.
JRM would be overpromoted as a local councillor.
Boris had made leader of the commons. Very much not a made up job.
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
The boomers all seem to have loved rationing, with its actual threat of prison, even though most were too young to remember it. So surely they’d adore heavily regulated standpipes.
I remember the public information films of the 1970s too, and the fact we couldn’t go shopping on Sundays. Yes, the good old libertarian dream of the 70s.
This feels like a real 2010 moment for the Tories to me. It feels like the end.
Time for Labour with LD support, competent Government back
Howso? 2010 was nearly 3 years after Blair had been replaced and 18 months after the financial crisis. And, as noted before, unless the LDs outperform their current polling the window for Lab/LD may be very narrow. And SKS has ruled out any deal with the LDs, so any 'support' would be policy by policy
I think Labour will get over 300 MPs, possibly around the 310 mark.
Ok, fair enough, i thought you meant some 'event', but yes, i can see a Labour result towards 300 as a possible upper end atm
Best result possible for Labour is a wafer thin majority.
If that happened I think that would make Starmer the best seat winner in some time? Certainly would be achievement to turn a majority into another majority. Blair technically did it but Major was a minority Government in 1997
The best possible result is a Lab/Lib government; the latter to provide the policy ideas that Keir seems to have trouble with and a hedge against the far left.
I agree it’s the best outcome. And would result in PR probably
Probably not. It is unlikely Labour would offer PR, and since the LibDems will have twice recently got into government without PR, there would be less reason for Ed Davey to insist on voting reform rather than more substantive policies.
HoL reform (abolition) is what is most badly needed, and fruitful for lds for all sorts of reasons
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
Water more expensive than printer ink?
Oh God, rationing accompanied by a 400% hike in bills and seven figure bonuses all round for the board. You can easily see the rapacious scalpers doing that.
That'd cause an interesting reaction in the Home Counties, no doubt...
"In the 1950s and early 1960s, Britain had three consecutive Tory prime ministers — Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home — all of whom had gone to the same school (Eton, naturally).
But after Labour's grammar school leader, Harold Wilson, won the 1964 general election, there wasn't another public-school prime minister until Tony Blair (Fettes, the Scottish Eton) won by a landslide in 1997.
For a time — those 33 years between 1964 and 1997 — it really seemed as if a new meritocratic age was dawning.
It even meant a wee lad from a Paisley council estate (me) could become editor of The Sunday Times, one of the world's most prestigious newspapers. It wasn't particularly unusual back then: the father of my legendary recent predecessor, Harry Evans, had been a train driver. The abolition of grammar schools was a setback. Public schools enjoyed a resurgence."
Shows the ignorance of the writer. Fettes is your bog standard post-Arnoldian foundation. And other schools were also called by that name. IIRC much of the current usage of that expression dates from one writer about Mr Blair.
Does Neil acknowledge that journalism was a non graduate job back in his day, starting out? Some had degrees, but most began as a trainee out of school at their local paper.
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
The boomers all seem to have loved rationing, with its actual threat of prison, even though most were too young to remember it. So surely they’d adore heavily regulated standpipes.
I remember the public information films of the 1970s too, and the fact we couldn’t go shopping on Sundays. Yes, the good old libertarian dream of the 70s.
I remember when rationing finished; didn't have to take sweet ration cards to scout camp anymore! There was a prospect of petrol rationing at the time of the Suez crisis but it never came to anything. Coupons were issued though!
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
Water more expensive than printer ink?
Oh God, rationing accompanied by a 400% hike in bills and seven figure bonuses all round for the board. You can easily see the rapacious scalpers doing that.
That'd cause an interesting reaction in the Home Counties, no doubt...
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
The boomers all seem to have loved rationing, with its actual threat of prison, even though most were too young to remember it. So surely they’d adore heavily regulated standpipes.
I remember the public information films of the 1970s too, and the fact we couldn’t go shopping on Sundays. Yes, the good old libertarian dream of the 70s.
Quite a few boomers got to know standpipes in 1976!
"In the 1950s and early 1960s, Britain had three consecutive Tory prime ministers — Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home — all of whom had gone to the same school (Eton, naturally).
But after Labour's grammar school leader, Harold Wilson, won the 1964 general election, there wasn't another public-school prime minister until Tony Blair (Fettes, the Scottish Eton) won by a landslide in 1997.
For a time — those 33 years between 1964 and 1997 — it really seemed as if a new meritocratic age was dawning.
It even meant a wee lad from a Paisley council estate (me) could become editor of The Sunday Times, one of the world's most prestigious newspapers. It wasn't particularly unusual back then: the father of my legendary recent predecessor, Harry Evans, had been a train driver. The abolition of grammar schools was a setback. Public schools enjoyed a resurgence."
Shows the ignorance of the writer. Fettes is your bog standard post-Arnoldian foundation. And other schools were also called by that name. IIRC much of the current usage of that expression dates from one writer about Mr Blair.
Does Neil acknowledge that journalism was a non graduate job back in his day, starting out? Some had degrees, but most began as a trainee out of school at their local paper.
Very much so. Denise Mina's Paddy Meehan crime novels are, IIRC, based very much in that milieu in the 1960s or 1970s.
I'll grant DA an exemption for his Mr Misanthrope character on PB, but if all being mentioned generally is the stuff listed on PB today, and other similar eg Liz Truss the student Lib Dem is a political swinger who cannot be trusted and gub gub worra worra we are all going to dyeeee, then I'm quite concerned by the ability of the critics to lay a finger on her.
What? She has been as thoroughly and repeatedly humiliated on prime time telly as any politician I can think of
"In the 1950s and early 1960s, Britain had three consecutive Tory prime ministers — Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home — all of whom had gone to the same school (Eton, naturally).
But after Labour's grammar school leader, Harold Wilson, won the 1964 general election, there wasn't another public-school prime minister until Tony Blair (Fettes, the Scottish Eton) won by a landslide in 1997.
For a time — those 33 years between 1964 and 1997 — it really seemed as if a new meritocratic age was dawning.
It even meant a wee lad from a Paisley council estate (me) could become editor of The Sunday Times, one of the world's most prestigious newspapers. It wasn't particularly unusual back then: the father of my legendary recent predecessor, Harry Evans, had been a train driver. The abolition of grammar schools was a setback. Public schools enjoyed a resurgence."
Shows the ignorance of the writer. Fettes is your bog standard post-Arnoldian foundation. And other schools were also called by that name. IIRC much of the current usage of that expression dates from one writer about Mr Blair.
Does Neil acknowledge that journalism was a non graduate job back in his day, starting out? Some had degrees, but most began as a trainee out of school at their local paper.
The most important stuff is most certainly the establishment of properly functioning local democracy, and a new settlement for devolved governments which delivers greater powers but appropriate accountability.
Although I' m no psephologist, wouldn't it be a massive task for Labour to win a majority in 2024?
We'd need a flock of black swans.
A Labour leader with charisma to begin with, I can't see that happening, unless they pinch the Finnish PM. Plus a Tory leader who comes out for Putin, but Corbyn's made that brand his own. Otherwise, they're relying on Liz making a pig's ear of things and transferring back to the LDs in mid-term.
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
Water more expensive than printer ink?
Oh God, rationing accompanied by a 400% hike in bills and seven figure bonuses all round for the board. You can easily see the rapacious scalpers doing that.
That'd cause an interesting reaction in the Home Counties, no doubt...
Finally we need new rules on party donations and media ownership.
These are all more important and more impactful than either PR at Westminster or HoL reform.
HoL reform is intimately tied up with party funding and political fraud and, comevto think of it, media ownership. The current situation makes us a laughing stock.
Finally we need new rules on party donations and media ownership.
These are all more important and more impactful than either PR at Westminster or HoL reform.
HoL reform is intimately tied up with party funding and political fraud and, comevto think of it, media ownership. The current situation makes us a laughing stock.
The issues are symptoms rather than cause.
But, we clearly need to remove prime ministerial patronage, or heavily regulate it somehow.
"In the 1950s and early 1960s, Britain had three consecutive Tory prime ministers — Anthony Eden, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home — all of whom had gone to the same school (Eton, naturally).
But after Labour's grammar school leader, Harold Wilson, won the 1964 general election, there wasn't another public-school prime minister until Tony Blair (Fettes, the Scottish Eton) won by a landslide in 1997.
For a time — those 33 years between 1964 and 1997 — it really seemed as if a new meritocratic age was dawning.
It even meant a wee lad from a Paisley council estate (me) could become editor of The Sunday Times, one of the world's most prestigious newspapers. It wasn't particularly unusual back then: the father of my legendary recent predecessor, Harry Evans, had been a train driver. The abolition of grammar schools was a setback. Public schools enjoyed a resurgence."
Shows the ignorance of the writer. Fettes is your bog standard post-Arnoldian foundation. And other schools were also called by that name. IIRC much of the current usage of that expression dates from one writer about Mr Blair.
iirc from that cheesy New Labour advert where a succession of Labour people named their favourite teachers (come to think of it, I might even have the book somewhere) Tony Blair named Eric Anderson who was head of both Fettes and Eton.
ETA tbh I've not much idea what post-Arnoldian means, except that Arnold was the pioneering, reforming Headmaster of Rugby but I've no idea what he actually pioneered or reformed.
Although I' m no psephologist, wouldn't it be a massive task for Labour to win a majority in 2024?
We'd need a flock of black swans.
A Labour leader with charisma to begin with, I can't see that happening, unless they pinch the Finnish PM. Plus a Tory leader who comes out for Putin, but Corbyn's made that brand his own. Otherwise, they're relying on Liz making a pig's ear of things and transferring back to the LDs in mid-term.
"wouldn't it be a massive task for Labour to win a majority in 2024?"
Yes.
I think most betting types on here think that if Starmer is to be PM it will be via a minority government.
A majority without scots labour mps is a mountain. Reducing Tories below a majority is doable.
Although I' m no psephologist, wouldn't it be a massive task for Labour to win a majority in 2024?
We'd need a flock of black swans.
A Labour leader with charisma to begin with, I can't see that happening, unless they pinch the Finnish PM. Plus a Tory leader who comes out for Putin, but Corbyn's made that brand his own. Otherwise, they're relying on Liz making a pig's ear of things and transferring back to the LDs in mid-term.
It woukd require the best performance since 1945, or in a straight fight with no 'national government' or delayed elections due to war etc, matching MacDonald in 1929 gives a quite small majority of 25 or so. Its very very unlikely unless the wheels really come off, they are fighting a clear trend against them in the midlands and north long term, to brake and reverse in one with a dull fellow in charge is unlikely imo
Finally we need new rules on party donations and media ownership.
These are all more important and more impactful than either PR at Westminster or HoL reform.
No person or group should be able to donate more than a small amount to a political party (exact amount to be determined, say £1000 for people £10,000 for groups). No one who donates to a party should be able to receive an honour or peerage within 5 years, in order to avoid even the appearence of being rewarded for their donation.
What would be the objections? That the parties need more money? Who cares, they can cut their costs and rely on volunteers. That it punishes them for donating? It isn't punishment, they can always receive an honour if they deserve one later, or they can choose not to donate. That it restricts their free expression? This isn't america where money equals speech.
Although I' m no psephologist, wouldn't it be a massive task for Labour to win a majority in 2024?
We'd need a flock of black swans.
A Labour leader with charisma to begin with, I can't see that happening, unless they pinch the Finnish PM. Plus a Tory leader who comes out for Putin, but Corbyn's made that brand his own. Otherwise, they're relying on Liz making a pig's ear of things and transferring back to the LDs in mid-term.
Maybe but I'm always suspicious when people say it is almost unprecedented to overturn a majority of 80, as if the 80 seats were lined up in order and Labour had to fight them one by one.
In the list of urgent democratic reform, HoL reform is pretty much at the bottom.
However, it’s perhaps the “easiest”, and for that reason I fear that a Lab or Lab/LD will start there and ignore the important stuff.
It's also higher profile, whereas no one really cares about local government, hence it being such a hodgepodge. Securing reform of HoL will get much more attention and plaudits.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Although I' m no psephologist, wouldn't it be a massive task for Labour to win a majority in 2024?
We'd need a flock of black swans.
A Labour leader with charisma to begin with, I can't see that happening, unless they pinch the Finnish PM. Plus a Tory leader who comes out for Putin, but Corbyn's made that brand his own. Otherwise, they're relying on Liz making a pig's ear of things and transferring back to the LDs in mid-term.
Maybe but I'm always suspicious when people say it is almost unprecedented to overturn a majority of 80, as if the 80 seats were lined up in order and Labour had to fight them one by one.
Yes there's a disconnect between PB sentiment and the market on Labour majority. Sentiment says almost no chance. Market says 25% - ie a significant possibility. I think the market is making the better call on this occasion.
Since most commentators seem to think that Truss is barely capable of feeding and dressing herself, I expect she'll surprise on the upside.
Regardless of who wins, they'll be overtaken by events. Even if the Government ultimately shows enough flexibility with the Treasury chequebook to rescue large chunks of both the business community and the general population from being killed off by the energy crisis, it's not going to survive the water running out next year.
The electorate will abandon en masse a party that tells it to go and queue for hours in the streets (probably in a succession of Christ-awful heatwaves) to collect water with which to flush the bog from a communal standpipe. Probably observed by a petty jobsworth in a hi-vis vest and a Covid mask whose sole task is to ensure that you can only have half-a-bucket at a time.
That, at long last, will be the end of the Conservatives. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Powerful imagery here - the end of the Conservatives accompanied by a collective struggle to flush the bog.
There was the unprecedented heat crisis, then the drought crisis, now the unprecedented rain crisis. Hopefully there will be a snow crisis next winter, because snowflakes will love it.
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
Exact millilitre allowances backed up with Draconian fines and the threat of prison - whilst the Cabinet convenes at Chequers three times a week for Champagne, canapes and a nice dip in the pool, no doubt.
Water more expensive than printer ink?
Oh God, rationing accompanied by a 400% hike in bills and seven figure bonuses all round for the board. You can easily see the rapacious scalpers doing that.
That'd cause an interesting reaction in the Home Counties, no doubt...
The Times is saying Rees Mogg is being lined up for Levelling Up secretary. That, surely, is too much for Labour to ask for. And Braverman to the Home Office is tricky. Is there another qualified Tory lawyer in Parliament willing to debase the law to the extent she has as AG? If not, surely she has to stay in place to provide the ingoing cover Truss will need to tear up the Protocol, stick with Rwanda, bypass Parliament etc.
Rees Mogg as 'Levelling Up secretary' That's the best joke ever. Could they bring back the guy with the moat and put him in charge of Housing ?
Even Boris Johnson didnt trust JRM to be in the Cabinet until he made up a Brexit opportunities gig, ie not trusting him with a department. Truss would be very unwise to promote someone even Boris knew was not up to it.
She has plenty to choose from, picking JRM would be absurd.
JRM would be overpromoted as a local councillor.
Boris had made leader of the commons. Very much not a made up job.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
And which N was the one in snp, and the 6 nations rugby started as the home nations 1882.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Mind you, as a counter-example there's a National Library of Wales too!
The 80 seat Tory majority isn’t built on concrete but sand .
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
Yes, an 80 seat majority is very overturnable. In 2005 Blair went from a 167 majority to 66, more than 100 lower. In 1992 Major went from 102 to 21, similar to the amount needed in 2024, and in 2010 of course Brown went from 66 to being short of a majority by 68.
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
The 80 seat Tory majority isn’t built on concrete but sand .
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
Yes, an 80 seat majority is very overturnable. In 2005 Blair went from a 167 majority to 66, more than 100 lower. In 1992 Major went from 102 to 21, similar to the amount needed in 2024, and in 2010 of course Brown went from 66 to being short of a majority by 68.
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
I preferred the unedited post. "Stories" typo for tories, I like it, quickly explains their addiction to governing a fantasy country rather than the reality of UK 2022.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Mind you, as a counter-example there's a National Library of Wales too!
Is it true that neither of the books have ever been borrowed?
The 80 seat Tory majority isn’t built on concrete but sand .
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
Yes, an 80 seat majority is very overturnable. In 2005 Blair went from a 167 majority to 66, more than 100 lower. In 1992 Major went from 102 to 21, similar to the amount needed in 2024, and in 2010 of course Brown went from 66 to being short of a majority by 68.
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
Labour will need to do better than the 05 and 92 examples, theyd have no prospect of getting a programme through on either. If they matched 2010, they'd probably need the SNP, they might be just about ok with LD votes depending how they do (theyd need about 30 seats) Its a tough ask but its doable. Central forecast for me is Labour minority, 40 to 50 short
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Mind you, as a counter-example there's a National Library of Wales too!
Is it true that neither of the books have ever been borrowed?
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Mind you, as a counter-example there's a National Library of Wales too!
Is it true that neither of the books have ever been borrowed?
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Did anyone see David Frost's bizarre comments about Wales & Scotland not being real nations - and planning to 'un-evolve' devolution. How to roll-back the Conservative vote in Wales and Scotland into hard-core English settlers.......
Frost is an English nationalist. For all his utter ridiculousness and lack of seriousness, he expresses what is now the dominant view inside the Conservative party. The SNP and Plaid Cymru will be absolutely delighted.
Correct.
Frost is a boon. More please. Much more.
Frost is a Unionist, he does not even back an English parliament let alone English independence but wants Westminster supremacy reasserted.
As long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP can do sod all, the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster and it will continue to refuse indyref2
The problem is that there are a great many Conservative Unionists in Scotland who happily support the Scottish football and rugby teams.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
The disjunct between the nightmarish economic portents and actual life out there now is as visible in central Florence as it is in London
Florence is rammed. It looks a bit ragged post covid and not as prosperous as it was, but the streets are heaving with tourists from all over. So the prosperity is returning…. Or so it feels
Something has to give. Are we in a dream about to shatter, or are these negative predictions overdone?
You do write some overwrought bollocks.
A recession, even a bad one, doesn't mean popular tourist spots become ghost-towns, or that nobody eats ice cream any more. It means that activity over the economy as a whole (of which tourism is one small part) declines, and we get less well off over a period of time. That's bad news, and for those in an already difficult economic position it's very bad news indeed, but it's not the end of days.
Plus reduced damage for tourism or luxury goods will lead to their price falling thus benefiting those who don't have financial difficulties.
There are always plenty of people who do well in a recession and likewise those who continue to struggle during strong economic growth.
While that's true, it is mostly the people who have ready cash on hand, who can buy assets at reduced prices who are the major beneficiaries of recession.
People who already live paycheck to paycheck are the ones most hit by rising electricity, food and gas prices.
Right now, British consumers have been avoiding cutting back by whipping out their credit cards. That is a very dangerous place to be.
Did anyone see David Frost's bizarre comments about Wales & Scotland not being real nations - and planning to 'un-evolve' devolution. How to roll-back the Conservative vote in Wales and Scotland into hard-core English settlers.......
Frost is an English nationalist. For all his utter ridiculousness and lack of seriousness, he expresses what is now the dominant view inside the Conservative party. The SNP and Plaid Cymru will be absolutely delighted.
Correct.
Frost is a boon. More please. Much more.
Frost is a Unionist, he does not even back an English parliament let alone English independence but wants Westminster supremacy reasserted.
As long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP can do sod all, the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster and it will continue to refuse indyref2
The problem is that there are a great many Conservative Unionists in Scotland who happily support the Scottish football and rugby teams.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
So what, that applied even before Holyrood was created. England also has football and rugby teams.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt Bart. The law's the law, sweetheart, and the "Bob Neill says it is antiquated" plea is generally disregarded by the courts.
It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you?
Sensible people still remain more than a little uneasy about Putin's nukes, esp with the Zap sitiation. As with the approaching winter crisis, the fact that you are unable to imagine something is not a magic safeguard against it happening.
Did anyone see David Frost's bizarre comments about Wales & Scotland not being real nations - and planning to 'un-evolve' devolution. How to roll-back the Conservative vote in Wales and Scotland into hard-core English settlers.......
Frost is an English nationalist. For all his utter ridiculousness and lack of seriousness, he expresses what is now the dominant view inside the Conservative party. The SNP and Plaid Cymru will be absolutely delighted.
Correct.
Frost is a boon. More please. Much more.
Frost is a Unionist, he does not even back an English parliament let alone English independence but wants Westminster supremacy reasserted.
As long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP can do sod all, the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster and it will continue to refuse indyref2
The problem is that there are a great many Conservative Unionists in Scotland who happily support the Scottish football and rugby teams.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
So what, that applied even before Holyrood was created. England also has football and rugby teams.
So what?
I think it is foolish for a senior Conservative peer, who wishes his party to be the main repository of Unionist votes in Scotland, to suggest that it is not a proper nation.
Don't know why he is bothering to attack Pence, based on the quote in that piece he is continuing to do the thing where he is no longer pro-Trump, exactly, but still won't openly say so and will still argue in his favour, and so will probably bend the knee like everyone else.
Mr Pence had told conservatives not to attack the FBI, but criticised the Justice Department for the search and said it was politically motivated
Did anyone see David Frost's bizarre comments about Wales & Scotland not being real nations - and planning to 'un-evolve' devolution. How to roll-back the Conservative vote in Wales and Scotland into hard-core English settlers.......
Frost is an English nationalist. For all his utter ridiculousness and lack of seriousness, he expresses what is now the dominant view inside the Conservative party. The SNP and Plaid Cymru will be absolutely delighted.
Correct.
Frost is a boon. More please. Much more.
Frost is a Unionist, he does not even back an English parliament let alone English independence but wants Westminster supremacy reasserted.
As long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP can do sod all, the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster and it will continue to refuse indyref2
The problem is that there are a great many Conservative Unionists in Scotland who happily support the Scottish football and rugby teams.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
So what, that applied even before Holyrood was created. England also has football and rugby teams.
So what?
I think it is foolish for a senior Conservative peer, who wishes his party to be the main repository of Unionist votes in Scotland, to suggest that it is not a proper nation.
It is part of the United Kingdom, a ceremonial nation like England not a sovereign nation
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
The 80 seat Tory majority isn’t built on concrete but sand .
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
Yes, an 80 seat majority is very overturnable. In 2005 Blair went from a 167 majority to 66, more than 100 lower. In 1992 Major went from 102 to 21, similar to the amount needed in 2024, and in 2010 of course Brown went from 66 to being short of a majority by 68.
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
Labour will need to do better than the 05 and 92 examples, theyd have no prospect of getting a programme through on either. If they matched 2010, they'd probably need the SNP, they might be just about ok with LD votes depending how they do (theyd need about 30 seats) Its a tough ask but its doable. Central forecast for me is Labour minority, 40 to 50 short
I think Labour will get a majority of about 1 to 10 in January 2025. Con should be competitive for the 2029/2030 general election.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt Bart. The law's the law, sweetheart, and the "Bob Neill says it is antiquated" plea is generally disregarded by the courts.
It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you?
Sensible people still remain more than a little uneasy about Putin's nukes, esp with the Zap sitiation. As with the approaching winter crisis, the fact that you are unable to imagine something is not a magic safeguard against it happening.
"The law's the law" - Achtung, jawohl mein fuhrer!
We are a common law country and there's antiquated laws on the books. If the courts and government have chosen not to enforce the law for centuries then that is generally a factor for consideration. As both lawmakers and judges have specifically said about this specific law.
Considering this law is antiquated and was antiquated half a century ago then no the Foreign Secretary is neither aiding nor abetting law breaking.
I can imagine something escalating nuclear but there's little point sweating it since if it happens there's nothing I can do about it anyway. If Armageddon happens, then none of us are likely to be around to see the aftermath so why worry about it?
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Fair point. Seems pretty bang to rights to me, though.
Did anyone see David Frost's bizarre comments about Wales & Scotland not being real nations - and planning to 'un-evolve' devolution. How to roll-back the Conservative vote in Wales and Scotland into hard-core English settlers.......
Frost is an English nationalist. For all his utter ridiculousness and lack of seriousness, he expresses what is now the dominant view inside the Conservative party. The SNP and Plaid Cymru will be absolutely delighted.
Correct.
Frost is a boon. More please. Much more.
Frost is a Unionist, he does not even back an English parliament let alone English independence but wants Westminster supremacy reasserted.
As long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP can do sod all, the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster and it will continue to refuse indyref2
The problem is that there are a great many Conservative Unionists in Scotland who happily support the Scottish football and rugby teams.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
So what, that applied even before Holyrood was created. England also has football and rugby teams.
So what?
I think it is foolish for a senior Conservative peer, who wishes his party to be the main repository of Unionist votes in Scotland, to suggest that it is not a proper nation.
It is part of the United Kingdom, a ceremonial nation like England not a sovereign nation
I have never heard the expression 'ceremonial nation' before. Where did you get this presumably official term before? Google only seems to come up with an armor set from an MMORPG, Minecraft, and something about TV out of Indonesia.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Against very strong competition, this is the most erroneous posting yet made on pb.com.
It's like sayng that soup was invented in the 1950s, or the domestic cat is extinct.
"Scottish National Party". Est. 1934. in part from "National Party of Scotland". Est 1928 from "Scots National League", "Scottish National Movement" and"G lasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association". and so on and so forth ...
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
The 80 seat Tory majority isn’t built on concrete but sand .
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
Yes, an 80 seat majority is very overturnable. In 2005 Blair went from a 167 majority to 66, more than 100 lower. In 1992 Major went from 102 to 21, similar to the amount needed in 2024, and in 2010 of course Brown went from 66 to being short of a majority by 68.
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
Labour will need to do better than the 05 and 92 examples, theyd have no prospect of getting a programme through on either. If they matched 2010, they'd probably need the SNP, they might be just about ok with LD votes depending how they do (theyd need about 30 seats) Its a tough ask but its doable. Central forecast for me is Labour minority, 40 to 50 short
I think Labour will get a majority of about 1 to 10 in January 2025. Con should be competitive for the 2029/2030 general election.
Its possible but i doubt it, theyll need to win some very unlikely seats
Edit - even running the Wakefield swing across the board doesnt get them to majority on gains from Conservative
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Fair point. Seems pretty bang to rights to me, though.
Could well be. I do think its right that even if it is a law that has not been prosecuted in a long time a Cabinet Minister should not encourage it to be broken even if others do, purely on the basis that they don't want to suggest people should pick and choose which laws to obey, though clearly risk of being punished for flouting it would be low. Probably want to keep it on there in case someone signs up with nations we do have a problem with.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt Bart. The law's the law, sweetheart, and the "Bob Neill says it is antiquated" plea is generally disregarded by the courts.
It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you?
Sensible people still remain more than a little uneasy about Putin's nukes, esp with the Zap sitiation. As with the approaching winter crisis, the fact that you are unable to imagine something is not a magic safeguard against it happening.
"The law's the law" - Achtung, jawohl mein fuhrer!
We are a common law country and there's antiquated laws on the books. If the courts and government have chosen not to enforce the law for centuries then that is generally a factor for consideration. As both lawmakers and judges have specifically said about this specific law.
Considering this law is antiquated and was antiquated half a century ago then no the Foreign Secretary is neither aiding nor abetting law breaking.
I can imagine something escalating nuclear but there's little point sweating it since if it happens there's nothing I can do about it anyway. If Armageddon happens, then none of us are likely to be around to see the aftermath so why worry about it?
Bloody hell. The law is what it is, Bart, not what you would like it to be, until it is repealed. Thinking about repealing it and then deciding not to, is not repealing it.
Even no your own terms you are profoundly wrong. the reason for the existence of the law AND for its non enforcement are one and the same: it's a figleaf so that if say Russia hauls in the UK amb and says Why are you sending mercs to Ukraine, UK amb can plausibly say Good Heavens tovarisch, nothing to do with us, we don't just not encourage such behaviour, we criminalise it. look at this Act we've got. This works best if the FS is not thick and criminal.
Did anyone see David Frost's bizarre comments about Wales & Scotland not being real nations - and planning to 'un-evolve' devolution. How to roll-back the Conservative vote in Wales and Scotland into hard-core English settlers.......
Frost is an English nationalist. For all his utter ridiculousness and lack of seriousness, he expresses what is now the dominant view inside the Conservative party. The SNP and Plaid Cymru will be absolutely delighted.
Correct.
Frost is a boon. More please. Much more.
Frost is a Unionist, he does not even back an English parliament let alone English independence but wants Westminster supremacy reasserted.
As long as we have a Tory majority government the SNP can do sod all, the future of the Union remains reserved to Westminster and it will continue to refuse indyref2
The problem is that there are a great many Conservative Unionists in Scotland who happily support the Scottish football and rugby teams.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
Just think what @DavidL would do for a living if Scots Law was abolished, as Lord, Frost wishes* - he who tried to use the European courts to strike down Scottish Parliament health legislation.
*Also Ms Truss, if one does her the honour of interpreting her words as they are spoken, i.e. assuming that they are comprehensible English. And not interpreted by her minions the next day as if they were Old Enochian crossed with Foia Foia.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Simply not true. I was there!
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925 National Museum of Antiquities - 1858 National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gallery 1890-ish National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Mind you, as a counter-example there's a National Library of Wales too!
As an *additional* counter-example? Ooh yes, so it is, from 1900-something. And the National Museum in Cardiff seems to be 1908 too.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
I once looked into a major legal issue affecting my professional field.
What struck me at the time was how many of my colleagues were only interested in the law as they thought it should be (preferably leaving them alone, or giving them special powers). They were at serious risk of coming unstuck, partly in terms of their own liabilities, and partly in terms of how their employers might react.
Very few of them actually considered what the law *was* as it stood, if only as a starting point to see (a) what their duties and liabilities might be, and (b) whence they might want to campaign for suitable changes.
I was considered a spoilsport - rather like our resident pirate does you.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Hmm who to believe - The Foreign Secretary, Harold Wilson, Lord Diplock, and Bob Neill - or IshamelZ?
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
I once looked into a major legal issue affecting my professional field.
What struck me at the time was how many of my colleagues were only interested in the law as they thought it should be (preferably leaving them alone, or giving them special powers). They were at serious risk of coming unstuck, partly in terms of their own liabilities, and partly in terms of how their employers might react.
Very few of them actually considered what the law *was* as it stood, if only as a starting point to see (a) what their duties and liabilities might be, and (b) whence they might want to campaign for suitable changes.
I was considered a spoilsport - rather like our resident pirate does you.
It is a common and understanndable mindset. Legal education is largely a matter of gaining an understanding how bonkers the system is allowed to be.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
I once looked into a major legal issue affecting my professional field.
What struck me at the time was how many of my colleagues were only interested in the law as they thought it should be (preferably leaving them alone, or giving them special powers). They were at serious risk of coming unstuck, partly in terms of their own liabilities, and partly in terms of how their employers might react.
Very few of them actually considered what the law *was* as it stood, if only as a starting point to see (a) what their duties and liabilities might be, and (b) whence they might want to campaign for suitable changes.
I was considered a spoilsport - rather like our resident pirate does you.
There are a lot of petty, bureaucratic laws out there which surprisingly senior people can get very annoyed at being told their annoyance is not a reason to not comply.
Another very common issue, particularly among barrack room lawyers or NIMBY types, is to find one bit of text that seems to support their view, without considering the need to consider it in context of, say, the complete policy or other laws.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Hmm who to believe - The Foreign Secretary, Harold Wilson, Lord Diplock, and Bob Neill - or IshamelZ?
I'll stick with Diplock et al thank you.
However, if Truss has committed an offence in endorsing breaking this act, then so has anyone who has celebrated, lionised, or unveiled memorials to, the International Brigades.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
I once looked into a major legal issue affecting my professional field.
What struck me at the time was how many of my colleagues were only interested in the law as they thought it should be (preferably leaving them alone, or giving them special powers). They were at serious risk of coming unstuck, partly in terms of their own liabilities, and partly in terms of how their employers might react.
Very few of them actually considered what the law *was* as it stood, if only as a starting point to see (a) what their duties and liabilities might be, and (b) whence they might want to campaign for suitable changes.
I was considered a spoilsport - rather like our resident pirate does you.
It is a common and understanndable mindset. Legal education is largely a matter of gaining an understanding how bonkers the system is allowed to be.
Organisations seem to generally expect people to learn such things on the job, or by word of mouth. Or just rely on a vague impression of the rules.
What's worrying is the police seem to approach things that way too.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Hmm who to believe - The Foreign Secretary, Harold Wilson, Lord Diplock, and Bob Neill - or IshamelZ?
I'll stick with Diplock et al thank you.
No, Bart, because all five are saying precisely the same thing.
By the way, if I think you owe me money, I am not allowed just to come round and take your car away from outside your house. You know why not? The Statute of Marlborough 1267 is why not.
The 80 seat Tory majority isn’t built on concrete but sand .
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
Yes, an 80 seat majority is very overturnable. In 2005 Blair went from a 167 majority to 66, more than 100 lower. In 1992 Major went from 102 to 21, similar to the amount needed in 2024, and in 2010 of course Brown went from 66 to being short of a majority by 68.
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
Labour will need to do better than the 05 and 92 examples, theyd have no prospect of getting a programme through on either. If they matched 2010, they'd probably need the SNP, they might be just about ok with LD votes depending how they do (theyd need about 30 seats) Its a tough ask but its doable. Central forecast for me is Labour minority, 40 to 50 short
I think Labour will get a majority of about 1 to 10 in January 2025. Con should be competitive for the 2029/2030 general election.
Its possible but i doubt it, theyll need to win some very unlikely seats
Edit - even running the Wakefield swing across the board doesnt get them to majority on gains from Conservative
As a non-Labour voter who hates the current government, the main thing for me is that the stories/Tories do badly. Step 1 is for them to lose, badly.
Don’t need a Labour majority. Just enough headroom to keep the conservatives out fig as long as possible, avoid over-reliance on the SNP but force a deal with the Lib Dems, Green(s) and Alliance party.
Not a fan of Truss myself but the comments about her being unfit to be PM because she supported people going to fight for Ukraine seem to be a little blind to history.
In 1937 when Leader of the Opposition, Clement Attlee not only encouraged Britons to join the International Brigade fighting in Spain - even though it was illegal - he even travelled down to Spain to visit one of the British battalions and offer support and encouragement on the ground. Indeed as a result of his visit they named one of the Companies the 'Major Attlee Company' in his honour. His visit was all over Pathe news and seems to have been well received in Britain.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Hmm who to believe - The Foreign Secretary, Harold Wilson, Lord Diplock, and Bob Neill - or IshamelZ?
I'll stick with Diplock et al thank you.
However, if Truss has committed an offence in endorsing breaking this act, then so has anyone who has celebrated, lionised, or unveiled memorials to, the International Brigades.
Rubbish. The non-principal offences are aid, abet, counsel, procure, or in this case, induce. Ex post facto celebration has nothing to do with it.
I genuinely don't know what to make of Liz Truss. I fear she will rapidly develop quite a hectoring abrasive style of management and Government which will please some and irritate more.
She will be acutely aware of the fate of her predecessor and whatever genuflections she may feel she has to do to his memory will count for nothing if she incites a new rebellion within the Parliamentary Party.
She will also have the problem there are viable alternatives which she may well have to promote into senior positions - Mordaunt's chance may have gone but Badenoch's has not. There's an old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer but don't put them within stabbing range. Promoting Kemi Badenoch to a senior position will empower any future leadership challenge.
The presence of such a seemingly viable alternative will also mean Truss will need to see some significant improvements in the party's polling - the current YouGov may be an outlier but it's a frightening one with half the Conservative Parliamentary party likely to be lost should an election end up with those numbers. Backbenchers seeing their job prospects dissolving may be more inclined to discontent than if the polls show their seats staying in the blue camp.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Hmm who to believe - The Foreign Secretary, Harold Wilson, Lord Diplock, and Bob Neill - or IshamelZ?
I'll stick with Diplock et al thank you.
However, if Truss has committed an offence in endorsing breaking this act, then so has anyone who has celebrated, lionised, or unveiled memorials to, the International Brigades.
S4 provides: If any person, without the license of Her Majesty, being a British subject, within or without Her Majesty's dominions, accepts or agrees to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and in this Act referred to as a friendly state, or whether a British subject or not within Her Majesty's dominions, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any such foreign state as aforesaid,— He shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments, at the discretion of the court before which the offender is convicted; [...]1,
So, before Truss was guilty of an offence she would need to have "induced" the person to accept the engagement. Saying that you think it was a good idea, even if it is not, is not inducement.
Edit, the more interesting question might be whether being cheered on by the FS is "license". Might well be.
Not a fan of Truss myself but the comments about her being unfit to be PM because she supported people going to fight for Ukraine seem to be a little blind to history.
In 1937 when Leader of the Opposition, Clement Attlee not only encouraged Britons to join the International Brigade fighting in Spain - even though it was illegal - he even travelled down to Spain to visit one of the British battalions and offer support and encouragement on the ground. Indeed as a result of his visit they named one of the Companies the 'Major Attlee Company' in his honour. His visit was all over Pathe news and seems to have been well received in Britain.
The big risk with Ukraine - enough of a risk to make encouragement of people as Truss did dangerous - is the propaganda and blackmail opportunity afforded to Russia any time a Brit is captured.
By all means covertly permit it on the basis of deniability and caveat emptor, but government condoning of travelling to fight creates a duty of care and enables Russia to play us. As it has already done with Americans.
Her loose tongue and failure to consult or consider consequences is a trait sadly inherited from her former boss Boris.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h I keep wavering between "Truss is resilient and hardworking, the press will give her some room, she'll make a flurry of announcements that contrasts with Johnson...probably do a bit better than expected early on."
And
"This is going to be an almighty car crash".
Yup. And as I think Sam Freedman then points out, even if the honeymoon goes OK, the car crash will still happen, sometime. It will happen because of how Truss operates.
And right now, there's nothing anyone can do about it, unless Truss drops a career-ending clanger in the next fortnight or so.
So there's a bit of hope.
I get the notion that a leopard doesn't change its spots so if Truss was someone who regularly crashed the car in the past, one should expect her to do so again in the future.
But I'm struggling to see the supposed car crashes that she's been engaged in previously. She's been in the Cabinet for coming on to a decade now and I can't think of a single scandal or car crash she has been the cause of - if there have been many, please feel free to say what they are?
What are the top Liz Truss 'car crashes' in her roughly a decade in the Cabinet?
1. That speech where she spoke weirdly about Pork Markets. 2. That speech where she spoke weirdly about cheese. 3. Errrrr .... 4. Oh wait, that was the same speech nearly a decade ago. 5. Drawing a blank for any more.
Matthew Parris has been driven mad by Brexit. He's got as much impartiality when it comes to the modern Tories now as any other FBPE fanatic.
Just recently we've had...
Lavrov taking the piss out of her. Anglo-Lithuanian Freedom Armada that was obviously nonsense. Encouraging people to get their Duke of Edinburgh Award by joining the Azov Battalion. Multiple examples of policies that were 'misunderstood' and had be jettisoned.
So lets see, recently we've had
Lavrov hating her because she's standing up to Russia and supporting Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary reaching an agreement with our NATO allies Lithuania. A rant from you about "Azov".
For anyone who isn't a Putinist, Azov is a sign of trolling and the others are good things. Disappointing to see 8 mainly left-wingers like this comment.
That policy ideas suggested thirteen years ago are out of context for a leadership contest today isn't a car crash either. Circumstances change. Floating an idea and being willing to retreat on it immediately if it doesn't work rather than sending out Ministers to defend it for a week then retreating on it is probably an improvement on the departing government too.
The Azov thing, with the reference to Duke of Edinburgh awards, is probably a reference to this story (obviously, what Truss proposed is illegal):- Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60544838
What the Foreign Secretary said the was absolutely right and correct and anyone who chooses to join the conflict on Ukraine's side is being brave and fighting for democracy and freedom. Truss is right that it is their decision to make if they do that.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
We had all this at the time, Bart. It's illegal, it's terrible optics, it ends up with show trials and executions. Nothing clever about it at all.
As Bob Neill says in that link, that is an antiquated law that was last enforced in the 19th century. It was considered antiquated fifty years ago when the Wilson government commissioned the Diplock report. We have Britons serving in Ukraine today and they will not be prosecuted under an antiquated law any more than anyone shooting a Welshman with a bow and arrow within the walls of Chester will be acquitted or any other such antiquated myths.
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
Echt It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you? .
Not a law breaker unless she was convicted of the offence of course, technically.
Which won't happen since this is an antiquated law, QED no law breaking.
Excelling yourself in spouting shite, Bart. The expiration of statutes is not a thing. There's a lot of bods even cleverer and with higher legal qualifications than you whose job it is to identify and arrange the repeal of antiquated laws. If they think something should remain law it remains law, even if Barty dissents. Dura lex, sed ita scripta.
Hmm who to believe - The Foreign Secretary, Harold Wilson, Lord Diplock, and Bob Neill - or IshamelZ?
I'll stick with Diplock et al thank you.
Still at it?
Have you had a break or have you been insisting black is white continuously since I looked in an hour or two ago?
As a non-Labour voter who hates the current government, the main thing for me is that the stories/Tories do badly. Step 1 is for them to lose, badly.
Don’t need a Labour majority. Just enough headroom to keep the conservatives out fig as long as possible, avoid over-reliance on the SNP but force a deal with the Lib Dems, Green(s) and Alliance party.
Indeed and it may be such a patchwork quilt of a Government will prove more durable than many Conservative-inclined hope or expect. The old adage "surely none of you wants Jones back?" will be writ large in any post-election negotiations or machinations.
That Government of course has to deliver or at least be no worse than its predecessor and it may well be it can endure for a couple of terms by which time the Conservatives may have returned to a more centrist position and consigned the current populism to history.
That's the thing with populism - once it stops being popular with enough people, it has nothing to offer or nowhere to go.
Comments
I'm old enough to remember 1976. The pavements were covered with ladybirds in some towns on the south coast.
By the standpipe, there won't just be a jobsworth in a hi-vis vest, someone who worked as a Covid warden maybe. There's likely to be an "app" on smartphones that lets sheeple know the state is keeping track of exactly how much water they've taken and when. They won't even be allowed to join the back of the queue if the scanner screams "Verboten" at them.
As you say, we'll see.
https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1560706605695606784?t=WjK-VXyLzmRveasFbd-dqQ&s=33
"They're free to make their own trade deals too, of course, in much the same way that a recently separated Matt Hancock is free to date Rihanna."
I remember the public information films of the 1970s too, and the fact we couldn’t go shopping on Sundays. Yes, the good old libertarian dream of the 70s.
That'd cause an interesting reaction in the Home Counties, no doubt...
However, it’s perhaps the “easiest”, and for that reason I fear that a Lab or Lab/LD will start there and ignore the important stuff.
We'd need a flock of black swans.
A Labour leader with charisma to begin with, I can't see that happening, unless they pinch the Finnish PM. Plus a Tory leader who comes out for Putin, but Corbyn's made that brand his own. Otherwise, they're relying on Liz making a pig's ear of things and transferring back to the LDs in mid-term.
These are all more important and more impactful than either PR at Westminster or HoL reform.
But, we clearly need to remove prime ministerial patronage, or heavily regulate it somehow.
https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1560955963800174594?s=21&t=UQMYMEIa3X5hLZ8k3JgBkw
ETA tbh I've not much idea what post-Arnoldian means, except that Arnold was the pioneering, reforming Headmaster of Rugby but I've no idea what he actually pioneered or reformed.
Yes.
I think most betting types on here think that if Starmer is to be PM it will be via a minority government.
A majority without scots labour mps is a mountain. Reducing Tories below a majority is doable.
Its very very unlikely unless the wheels really come off, they are fighting a clear trend against them in the midlands and north long term, to brake and reverse in one with a dull fellow in charge is unlikely imo
What would be the objections? That the parties need more money? Who cares, they can cut their costs and rely on volunteers. That it punishes them for donating? It isn't punishment, they can always receive an honour if they deserve one later, or they can choose not to donate. That it restricts their free expression? This isn't america where money equals speech.
Hated it
The perfect storm of events delivered that . A toxic Corbyn and Brexit .
So the next GE is up for grabs .
A particularly telling piece of evidence comprises the major cultural institutions. Note that all were funded by UKG but through the Scottish Office since the 1900s or so (all direct rule at those dates):
National Library of Scotland - 1925
National Museum of Antiquities - 1858
National Museums of Scotland - 1980s sometime IIRC (complex cos of mergers)
And many, many books. e.g the standard m odern history - Tom Devine's (1999) Scottish Nation 1700–2000.
Also - Scottish National Portrait Gakllery 1890-ish
National Gallery of Scotland 1859
Betfair next prime minister
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
12.5 Rishi Sunak 8%
Next Conservative leader
1.07 Liz Truss 93%
14 Rishi Sunak 7%
That’s before we consider the swings in 1997 or, perhaps most pertinently, 2019. If the Tories can go from minority rule to a majority of 80 in a couple of years then they sure as hell can go back there and beyond in 5.
The bigger hurdle is for Labour to win enough seats not to need to rely on SNP or Plaid votes.
There is nothing illegal that I know of about people volunteering to serve with one of our allies during a conflict. Countries throughout the ages, including the UK, have had foreign legions or foreign volunteers.
Any Brits who sign up to fight for Ukraine are doing so at their own risk, but are not criminals for doing so.
Its a tough ask but its doable. Central forecast for me is Labour minority, 40 to 50 short
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Enlistment_Act_1870
Your faux concerns about show trials are up there with your supposed fears about Putin's nukes being used. If someone puts themselves at risk of a show trial they do so at their own risk, not at risk of show trials or criminal prosecution back home.
They are comfortable with the duality of Scotland being a nation inside the United Kingdom.
People who already live paycheck to paycheck are the ones most hit by rising electricity, food and gas prices.
Right now, British consumers have been avoiding cutting back by whipping out their credit cards. That is a very dangerous place to be.
It follows, incidentally, that Truss's words constitute an offence in themselves of aiding, abetting, c & p. I don't think a law breaker should be Prime Minister, do you?
Sensible people still remain more than a little uneasy about Putin's nukes, esp with the Zap sitiation. As with the approaching winter crisis, the fact that you are unable to imagine something is not a magic safeguard against it happening.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/mike-pence-coward-steve-bannon-b2149208.html
I think it is foolish for a senior Conservative peer, who wishes his party to be the main repository of Unionist votes in Scotland, to suggest that it is not a proper nation.
Mr Pence had told conservatives not to attack the FBI, but criticised the Justice Department for the search and said it was politically motivated
We are a common law country and there's antiquated laws on the books. If the courts and government have chosen not to enforce the law for centuries then that is generally a factor for consideration. As both lawmakers and judges have specifically said about this specific law.
Considering this law is antiquated and was antiquated half a century ago then no the Foreign Secretary is neither aiding nor abetting law breaking.
I can imagine something escalating nuclear but there's little point sweating it since if it happens there's nothing I can do about it anyway. If Armageddon happens, then none of us are likely to be around to see the aftermath so why worry about it?
"National Party of Scotland". Est 1928 from
"Scots National League", "Scottish National Movement" and"G lasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association".
and so on and so forth ...
Edit - even running the Wakefield swing across the board doesnt get them to majority on gains from Conservative
Even no your own terms you are profoundly wrong. the reason for the existence of the law AND for its non enforcement are one and the same: it's a figleaf so that if say Russia hauls in the UK amb and says Why are you sending mercs to Ukraine, UK amb can plausibly say Good Heavens tovarisch, nothing to do with us, we don't just not encourage such behaviour, we criminalise it. look at this Act we've got. This works best if the FS is not thick and criminal.
*Also Ms Truss, if one does her the honour of interpreting her words as they are spoken, i.e. assuming that they are comprehensible English. And not interpreted by her minions the next day as if they were Old Enochian crossed with Foia Foia.
What struck me at the time was how many of my colleagues were only interested in the law as they thought it should be (preferably leaving them alone, or giving them special powers). They were at serious risk of coming unstuck, partly in terms of their own liabilities, and partly in terms of how their employers might react.
Very few of them actually considered what the law *was* as it stood, if only as a starting point to see (a) what their duties and liabilities might be, and (b) whence they might want to campaign for suitable changes.
I was considered a spoilsport - rather like our resident pirate does you.
I'll stick with Diplock et al thank you.
Another very common issue, particularly among barrack room lawyers or NIMBY types, is to find one bit of text that seems to support their view, without considering the need to consider it in context of, say, the complete policy or other laws.
What's worrying is the police seem to approach things that way too.
By the way, if I think you owe me money, I am not allowed just to come round and take your car away from outside your house. You know why not? The Statute of Marlborough 1267 is why not.
Don’t need a Labour majority. Just enough headroom to keep the conservatives out fig as long as possible, avoid over-reliance on the SNP but force a deal with the Lib Dems, Green(s) and Alliance party.
In 1937 when Leader of the Opposition, Clement Attlee not only encouraged Britons to join the International Brigade fighting in Spain - even though it was illegal - he even travelled down to Spain to visit one of the British battalions and offer support and encouragement on the ground. Indeed as a result of his visit they named one of the Companies the 'Major Attlee Company' in his honour. His visit was all over Pathe news and seems to have been well received in Britain.
I genuinely don't know what to make of Liz Truss. I fear she will rapidly develop quite a hectoring abrasive style of management and Government which will please some and irritate more.
She will be acutely aware of the fate of her predecessor and whatever genuflections she may feel she has to do to his memory will count for nothing if she incites a new rebellion within the Parliamentary Party.
She will also have the problem there are viable alternatives which she may well have to promote into senior positions - Mordaunt's chance may have gone but Badenoch's has not. There's an old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer but don't put them within stabbing range. Promoting Kemi Badenoch to a senior position will empower any future leadership challenge.
The presence of such a seemingly viable alternative will also mean Truss will need to see some significant improvements in the party's polling - the current YouGov may be an outlier but it's a frightening one with half the Conservative Parliamentary party likely to be lost should an election end up with those numbers. Backbenchers seeing their job prospects dissolving may be more inclined to discontent than if the polls show their seats staying in the blue camp.
If any person, without the license of Her Majesty, being a British subject, within or without Her Majesty's dominions, accepts or agrees to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and in this Act referred to as a friendly state, or whether a British subject or not within Her Majesty's dominions, induces any other person to accept or agree to accept any commission or engagement in the military or naval service of any such foreign state as aforesaid,—
He shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments, at the discretion of the court before which the offender is convicted; [...]1,
So, before Truss was guilty of an offence she would need to have "induced" the person to accept the engagement. Saying that you think it was a good idea, even if it is not, is not inducement.
Edit, the more interesting question might be whether being cheered on by the FS is "license". Might well be.
By all means covertly permit it on the basis of deniability and caveat emptor, but government condoning of travelling to fight creates a duty of care and enables Russia to play us. As it has already done with Americans.
Her loose tongue and failure to consult or consider consequences is a trait sadly inherited from her former boss Boris.
Have you had a break or have you been insisting black is white continuously since I looked in an hour or two ago?
That Government of course has to deliver or at least be no worse than its predecessor and it may well be it can endure for a couple of terms by which time the Conservatives may have returned to a more centrist position and consigned the current populism to history.
That's the thing with populism - once it stops being popular with enough people, it has nothing to offer or nowhere to go.