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.
Theres quite a wide area of chaos between Con losing control and Labour being able to effectively govern. An 8% swing would be massive but the result would be a very uncertain parliament. Ironically that looks a likely/possible landing strip too
I must say, having just returned from 3 weeks on the continent where the weather has been either unpleasantly hot and humid or pouring with rain, it’s a pleasure to be outside in a bright, breezy and comfortable 24C.
There need to be more places in short haul distance that are both bone dry and reliably sunny in summer while staying below 30C. Apart from the Canaries.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
Until about 15 years ago hardly anyone described Scotland and Wales as "nations". Not even most nationalists.
Rubbish.
'The tournament was first played in 1883 as the Home Nations Championship among the four Home Nations of the United Kingdom – England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. However, England was excluded from the 1888 and 1889 tournaments due to their refusal to join the International Rugby Football Board. The tournament then became the Five Nations Championship in 1910 with the addition of France. The tournament was expanded in 2000 to become the Six Nations Championship with the addition of Italy.'
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
I don't think cheering someone on is either counselling or being an accessory. I think it would be construed in a manner which had a direct effect on the action of the person going. I do not think that there would be sufficient proximity between the statement and the Act. It is speculative though because although there has been the odd prosecution under s4 I cannot find any reference to any prosecution ever under s12.
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.
Sure, the Enlistment Act 1870 is a dead letter. The last prosecution was in 1896, since when, thousands of British nationals have fought in foreign conflicts. And as you say, nobody prosecuted Attlee.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
I guess so, there’s plenty of stronger evidence on that score.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
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.
FWIW, I think being PM will go to her head straight away and she'll be forcing through radical/bonkers policy within months. She is late stage Thatcher without the previous eight years.
The ageing, Brexit raging membership will love it until the party is out of office for two terms and possibly longer if Starmer goes for PR.
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
I don't think cheering someone on is either counselling or being an accessory. I think it would be construed in a manner which had a direct effect on the action of the person going. I do not think that there would be sufficient proximity between the statement and the Act. It is speculative though because although there has been the odd prosecution under s4 I cannot find any reference to any prosecution ever under s12.
"I would support them in that" from the FS is strong stuff. I can see it tipping the balance between going vs not going for someone who was not a lawyer and not prepared to entertain the possibility of the FS being a fuckwit. If you are causing something to happen, you are procuring 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.
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
I don't think cheering someone on is either counselling or being an accessory. I think it would be construed in a manner which had a direct effect on the action of the person going. I do not think that there would be sufficient proximity between the statement and the Act. It is speculative though because although there has been the odd prosecution under s4 I cannot find any reference to any prosecution ever under s12.
"I would support them in that" from the FS is strong stuff. I can see it tipping the balance between going vs not going for someone who was not a lawyer and not prepared to entertain the possibility of the FS being a fuckwit. If you are causing something to happen, you are procuring it.
Which is perfectly OK just as it was OK when Attlee did the same thing.
Get the stick out of your arse.
Or do you think that what Truss has said is 'worse' than what Attlee did from the perspective of this antiquated nonsense 'law'?
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
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.
FWIW, I think being PM will go to her head straight away and she'll be forcing through radical/bonkers policy within months. She is late stage Thatcher without the previous eight years.
The ageing, Brexit raging membership will love it until the party is out of office for two terms and possibly longer if Starmer goes for PR.
They'll be happy - we've already been told that they will blame the ousting of Boris if they lose multiple elections, and people seem happpiest when moaning.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
I don't think cheering someone on is either counselling or being an accessory. I think it would be construed in a manner which had a direct effect on the action of the person going. I do not think that there would be sufficient proximity between the statement and the Act. It is speculative though because although there has been the odd prosecution under s4 I cannot find any reference to any prosecution ever under s12.
"I would support them in that" from the FS is strong stuff. I can see it tipping the balance between going vs not going for someone who was not a lawyer and not prepared to entertain the possibility of the FS being a fuckwit. If you are causing something to happen, you are procuring it.
Which is perfectly OK just as it was OK when Attlee did the same thing.
Get the stick out of your arse.
Or do you think that what Truss has said is 'worse' than what Attlee did from the perspective of this antiquated nonsense 'law'?
Bart, like so many of your internet debates, this is purely about you being wrong. You said
"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. "
You were wrong, and this was pointed out to you. The age of the relevant law is not in point, the lack of prosecutions is not in point, Attlee for a million reasons is not in point, and this is a side issue anyway: the legality or not of the act in question accounts for at most 2% of the overall fuckwittedness of Truss's words. As her own retraction admits and confirms.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Mail going full on operation Liz forever tonight. Kwarteng says help is coming on energy. How unbearably exciting
It's hardly a surprise to see the Mail on Sunday backing a Conservative leader - they always will if the alternative is a Labour or indeed any non-Conservative Government.
The process of "selling" Liz Truss to the public is now beginning.
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
I don't think cheering someone on is either counselling or being an accessory. I think it would be construed in a manner which had a direct effect on the action of the person going. I do not think that there would be sufficient proximity between the statement and the Act. It is speculative though because although there has been the odd prosecution under s4 I cannot find any reference to any prosecution ever under s12.
"I would support them in that" from the FS is strong stuff. I can see it tipping the balance between going vs not going for someone who was not a lawyer and not prepared to entertain the possibility of the FS being a fuckwit. If you are causing something to happen, you are procuring it.
Which is perfectly OK just as it was OK when Attlee did the same thing.
Get the stick out of your arse.
Or do you think that what Truss has said is 'worse' than what Attlee did from the perspective of this antiquated nonsense 'law'?
Bart, like so many of your internet debates, this is purely about you being wrong. You said
"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. "
You were wrong, and this was pointed out to you. The age of the relevant law is not in point, the lack of prosecutions is not in point, Attlee for a million reasons is not in point, and this is a side issue anyway: the legality or not of the act in question accounts for at most 2% of the overall fuckwittedness of Truss's words. As her own retraction admits and confirms.
The age of the law is not at stake, an old law that is still enforced won't be antiquated.
What matters is that its an antiquated law that has not been enforced for over a century during which time Clement Attlee and more have broken this so-called law without consequence because the law is a dead letter that isn't being enforced.
The lack of prosecutions, Attlee etc precisely are the point. If a law ceases to be enforced for hundreds of years and consistently violated and not enforced during that time then it ceases to meaningfully be 'the law'.
There was absolutely no fuckwittedness of Truss's words, her words were entirely appropriate. So too was reiterating the travel advice which is entirely consistent.
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.
FWIW, I think being PM will go to her head straight away and she'll be forcing through radical/bonkers policy within months. She is late stage Thatcher without the previous eight years.
The ageing, Brexit raging membership will love it until the party is out of office for two terms and possibly longer if Starmer goes for PR.
They don't seem to understand that they may be putting Brexit at risk in the long term. Perhaps they don't really care if they won't be around any longer anyway?
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Considering people are prosecuted on a daily basis for violating the speed limit, while nobody has been prosecuted since the 19th century for the other so-called law that has been repeatedly confirmed to be antiquated . . . you're full of manure.
Mail going full on operation Liz forever tonight. Kwarteng says help is coming on energy. How unbearably exciting
It's hardly a surprise to see the Mail on Sunday backing a Conservative leader - they always will if the alternative is a Labour or indeed any non-Conservative Government.
The process of "selling" Liz Truss to the public is now beginning.
Yes, we will now see what iteration of Truss is to be the 'official' PM Truss
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.
Sure, the Enlistment Act 1870 is a dead letter. The last prosecution was in 1896, since when, thousands of British nationals have fought in foreign conflicts. And as you say, nobody prosecuted Attlee.
This discussion misses the elephant in the room. The reason why Truss should not have encouraged Britons to fight for Ukraine is that Britain is not at war with Russia.
Britain is not at war with Russia. That means if any of the Truss volunteers are captured, they can be executed because they are not prisoners of war because there is no war.
Attlee and Spain do not apply here because there was no Geneva Convention in 1930-odd.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
Truss's encouragement (since withdrawn) of Britons rushing to fight for Ukraine is more than unwise.
And where does it leave Britons captured by Russian forces?
Truss was outside the law because Britain is not at war with Russia. That makes her remarks doubly stupid because the corollary of that is that once captured, British volunteers can be treated as mercenaries and not prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention. And this is exactly what has now happened in some cases.
Attlee and Spain are red herrings here because the Geneva Convention did not exist in the 1930s.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
Truss's encouragement (since withdrawn) of Britons rushing to fight for Ukraine is more than unwise.
And where does it leave Britons captured by Russian forces?
Truss was outside the law because Britain is not at war with Russia. That makes her remarks doubly stupid because the corollary of that is that once captured, British volunteers can be treated as mercenaries and not prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention. And this is exactly what has now happened in some cases.
Attlee and Spain are red herrings here because the Geneva Convention did not exist in the 1930s.
If Britain was at war with Russia then people wouldn't need to join with the Ukrainians to fight, they could fight in the British army.
Absolutely British volunteers can be treated as mercenaries which is precisely why anyone who fights does so at their own risk, which is what Truss said all along and was just the same in Attlee's day.
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.
Sure, the Enlistment Act 1870 is a dead letter. The last prosecution was in 1896, since when, thousands of British nationals have fought in foreign conflicts. And as you say, nobody prosecuted Attlee.
This discussion misses the elephant in the room. The reason why Truss should not have encouraged Britons to fight for Ukraine is that Britain is not at war with Russia.
Britain is not at war with Russia. That means if any of the Truss volunteers are captured, they can be executed because they are not prisoners of war because there is no war.
Attlee and Spain do not apply here because there was no Geneva Convention in 1930-odd.
That is why Ukraine insists that foreign fighters sign up to the foreign legion. It means that they are lawful combatants as members of Ukraine's armed forces, and so protected by the Geneva Conventions.
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.
Ah, you mean like the words "a well regulated militia"?
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.
I don't think that's true: it's the difference between celebrating a murderer (not a crime) and encouraging someone to murder someone (a crime, I presume).
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Considering people are prosecuted on a daily basis for violating the speed limit, while nobody has been prosecuted since the 19th century for the other so-called law that has been repeatedly confirmed to be antiquated . . . you're full of manure.
No, Barty. Whether a law is in force, and whether prosecutions are brought under it, are separate questions. Think about the Treason Act. "Antiquated" is nothing to do with anything in this context.
you made an arse of yourself because you didn't know about the 1870 Act. Stop HYUFDing 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.
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 so. s12 says
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
I don't think cheering someone on is either counselling or being an accessory. I think it would be construed in a manner which had a direct effect on the action of the person going. I do not think that there would be sufficient proximity between the statement and the Act. It is speculative though because although there has been the odd prosecution under s4 I cannot find any reference to any prosecution ever under s12.
"I would support them in that" from the FS is strong stuff. I can see it tipping the balance between going vs not going for someone who was not a lawyer and not prepared to entertain the possibility of the FS being a fuckwit. If you are causing something to happen, you are procuring it.
Which is perfectly OK just as it was OK when Attlee did the same thing.
Get the stick out of your arse.
Or do you think that what Truss has said is 'worse' than what Attlee did from the perspective of this antiquated nonsense 'law'?
Bart, like so many of your internet debates, this is purely about you being wrong. You said
"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. "
You were wrong, and this was pointed out to you. The age of the relevant law is not in point, the lack of prosecutions is not in point, Attlee for a million reasons is not in point, and this is a side issue anyway: the legality or not of the act in question accounts for at most 2% of the overall fuckwittedness of Truss's words. As her own retraction admits and confirms.
The age of the law is not at stake, an old law that is still enforced won't be antiquated.
What matters is that its an antiquated law that has not been enforced for over a century during which time Clement Attlee and more have broken this so-called law without consequence because the law is a dead letter that isn't being enforced.
The lack of prosecutions, Attlee etc precisely are the point. If a law ceases to be enforced for hundreds of years and consistently violated and not enforced during that time then it ceases to meaningfully be 'the law'.
There was absolutely no fuckwittedness of Truss's words, her words were entirely appropriate. So too was reiterating the travel advice which is entirely consistent.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
Truss's encouragement (since withdrawn) of Britons rushing to fight for Ukraine is more than unwise.
And where does it leave Britons captured by Russian forces?
Truss was outside the law because Britain is not at war with Russia. That makes her remarks doubly stupid because the corollary of that is that once captured, British volunteers can be treated as mercenaries and not prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention. And this is exactly what has now happened in some cases.
Attlee and Spain are red herrings here because the Geneva Convention did not exist in the 1930s.
The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1864 and 1929 (and updated in 1949)!
Edit - also I think, although ianae, that the 1949 Geneva Protocols were at least partly designed to incorporate The Hague Conventions of 1907, which did address the status of civilians including civilians under arms and mercenaries.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
Yep I would agree with that. Of course the lawyers on here are correct as far as I can tell that it was also close to being illegal (I don't know enough about the finer details to be able to argue it myself).
My only point was that it has happened before and no one would have dreamed of prosecuting Attlee when he did it.
And I would suggest that public support for Ukraine and those fighting for them is probably even stronger today than was support for the Republican side in Spain in the 1930s.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Considering people are prosecuted on a daily basis for violating the speed limit, while nobody has been prosecuted since the 19th century for the other so-called law that has been repeatedly confirmed to be antiquated . . . you're full of manure.
No, Barty. Whether a law is in force, and whether prosecutions are brought under it, are separate questions. Think about the Treason Act. "Antiquated" is nothing to do with anything in this context.
you made an arse of yourself because you didn't know about the 1870 Act. Stop HYUFDing about it.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Considering people are prosecuted on a daily basis for violating the speed limit, while nobody has been prosecuted since the 19th century for the other so-called law that has been repeatedly confirmed to be antiquated . . . you're full of manure.
No, Barty. Whether a law is in force, and whether prosecutions are brought under it, are separate questions. Think about the Treason Act. "Antiquated" is nothing to do with anything in this context.
you made an arse of yourself because you didn't know about the 1870 Act. Stop HYUFDing about it.
Shan Masood expected to join Yorkshire as their captain for next season.
Still unclear whether they will be forcibly relegated to Division Two, but since Derbyshire are unlikely at this moment to be promoted that wouldn't presumably make a difference to his decision.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
Yep I would agree with that. Of course the lawyers on here are correct as far as I can tell that it was also close to being illegal (I don't know enough about the finer details to be able to argue it myself).
My only point was that it has happened before and no one would have dreamed of prosecuting Attlee when he did it.
And I would suggest that public support for Ukraine and those fighting for them is probably even stronger today than was support for the Republican side in Spain in the 1930s.
It's certainly fair to say the chances of someone being prosecuted for it are infinetessimally low. What prosecutor would decide it was in the public interest to do so, even if the evidence was gathered?
But that is a separate question entirely as to whether it is, in fact, against the law, and whether Cabinet Ministers should encourage lawbreaking, even if no one is really going to prosecute. Certainly it is an entirely separate point to arguing that because it is not prosecuted it is no longer a law at all. Until repealed it is law.
It's not like it is the Easter Act 1928, never enforced.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
Yep I would agree with that. Of course the lawyers on here are correct as far as I can tell that it was also close to being illegal (I don't know enough about the finer details to be able to argue it myself).
My only point was that it has happened before and no one would have dreamed of prosecuting Attlee when he did it.
And I would suggest that public support for Ukraine and those fighting for them is probably even stronger today than was support for the Republican side in Spain in the 1930s.
It's worth pointing out though that technically the International Brigades were not fighting for a belligerent country. They were taking part in a civil war, which is I believe dealt with differently and more like a police action.
A 10-year-old girl was found paddling 150 metres off the coast of an Anglesey beach without a life jacket on. RNLI volunteers spotted the youngster on a "boogie board", while other concerned beachgoers had also seen her and were heading out to help. But her parents were "oblivious to it all", the RNLI said. In a statement on Facebook, RNLI's Moelfre crew said the incident unfolded after they had been called to other incidents nearby.
They said: "Twice [on Friday], the volunteers were tasked to launch the Inshore lifeboat 'Enfys 2' due to incidents that involved paddleboards and a kayak. The first launch request came at 10.31 am after two paddleboarders appeared to struggle in the strong offshore wind. "The second shout came at 2.38 pm after reports of one person onboard a kayak was seen waving their paddle to attract assistance again due to the 27-knot offshore wind. On both occasions, the casualties were assisted ashore and given sea safety advice by the RNLI crew and the mobile coastguard team."
They added: "After both shouts, the RNLI crew swept all the popular beaches from St Davids to Lligwy, advising several people on the water of the risks involved during any offshore wind. During the sweep on the first shout at Lligwy, the lifeboat crew came across a 10-year-old girl on her own on a boogie board approx. 150 meters offshore. No lifejacket.
"Concerned members of the public were starting to walk out to help her.
Her parents were at the top of the beach, oblivious to it all.
The RNLI crew escorted her back in and gave the parents stern safety advice.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Considering people are prosecuted on a daily basis for violating the speed limit, while nobody has been prosecuted since the 19th century for the other so-called law that has been repeatedly confirmed to be antiquated . . . you're full of manure.
No, Barty. Whether a law is in force, and whether prosecutions are brought under it, are separate questions. Think about the Treason Act. "Antiquated" is nothing to do with anything in this context.
you made an arse of yourself because you didn't know about the 1870 Act. Stop HYUFDing about it.
IANAL but it seems to me that whether a law is in force and whether prosecutions are brought under it are not entirely separate questions.
Considering that anyone accused of breaking a law is innocent until proven guilty, if the law is never enforced then how can you ever claim somebody is guilty of breaking the law? Everyone accused must be innocent under the law, for as long as prosecutions refuse to be brought.
If a law is routinely flouted for centuries and in those centuries the law is never enforced, then it seems to me that the law has been deprecated even if its formally on the books. Everyone who has allegedly broken the law is formally innocent of doing so surely, due to the fact that prosecutions are never brought?
I agree with Matthew Parris. I have never met Liz Truss, but having watched and listened to her, I have met enough people who could be her clone to know that she will be useless.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
Yep I would agree with that. Of course the lawyers on here are correct as far as I can tell that it was also close to being illegal (I don't know enough about the finer details to be able to argue it myself).
My only point was that it has happened before and no one would have dreamed of prosecuting Attlee when he did it.
And I would suggest that public support for Ukraine and those fighting for them is probably even stronger today than was support for the Republican side in Spain in the 1930s.
The analogy I would use is that of Americans who fought for us against the Nazis before America joined the war. I don't think any of them were ever prosecuted by Uncle Sam, though of course Americans who helped the Nazis were judged traitors.
Shamefully, the Irish harassed their citizens who fought for freedom during World War 2 while self-righteously remaining neutral.
I agree with Matthew Parris. I have never met Liz Truss, but having watched and listened to her, I have met enough people who could be her clone to know that she will be useless.
As the other Matthew Paris wrote “If you speak or write truth about powerful men, they become your enemies”. So one Matthew Paris got that Boris would hammer Sunak for holding up a mirror whilst Liz will be the target of this Matthew Parris.
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
Yep I would agree with that. Of course the lawyers on here are correct as far as I can tell that it was also close to being illegal (I don't know enough about the finer details to be able to argue it myself).
My only point was that it has happened before and no one would have dreamed of prosecuting Attlee when he did it.
And I would suggest that public support for Ukraine and those fighting for them is probably even stronger today than was support for the Republican side in Spain in the 1930s.
The analogy I would use is that of Americans who fought for us against the Nazis before America joined the war. I don't think any of them were ever prosecuted by Uncle Sam, though of course Americans who helped the Nazis were judged traitors.
Shamefully, the Irish harassed their citizens who fought for freedom during World War 2 while self-righteously remaining neutral.
To be fair, Britain has more recently taken a dim view of Shemima Begum and the ISIS Beatles even if they were fighting Syria and Al Qaeda. Not enough of a dim view as to stop them going in the first place but...
Hmm. We seem to have drifted off the point of whether Liz Truss was wrong to have encouraged Britons to take up arms, or wrong to reverse ferret. We can probably agree she was wrong.
What odds on Dizzy Lizzy quoting Saint Francis of Assisi when she assumes office?
She might quote Adam Smith:
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
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.
I think I probably agree with you (and certainly about acting off the cuff without consultation), although on balance I think that the fact we have been openly supplying the Ukrainians with the weapons and training to allow the to destroy Russian tanks probably puts us far more in their bad books than a few dozen or hundred volunteers going over there to fight.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
I don't think her comments on that make her unfit to be PM, they were simply unwise.
No, of course not. The tendency in arguments with Barty is always towards an overstatement of the case. But they were very unwise, clearly not thought out at all, and led to a 360deg ferret 3 days later. That's a pattern we have seen in recent weeks, but this is a disturbing reminder that she does it in real life too not just in hustings.
A 360 degree ferret of course leaves you facing exactly the same direction as when you started.
Not what happened, in that case. She retracted, contradicted herself and lied about what she had previously said. as per.
The media love to frame something as a u-turn but she didn't retract or contradict herself. She said that the travel advice is that people should not travel to Ukraine.
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
Barty, the claim is as ridiculous as claiming that the national speed limit is 70 mph.
Considering people are prosecuted on a daily basis for violating the speed limit, while nobody has been prosecuted since the 19th century for the other so-called law that has been repeatedly confirmed to be antiquated . . . you're full of manure.
No, Barty. Whether a law is in force, and whether prosecutions are brought under it, are separate questions. Think about the Treason Act. "Antiquated" is nothing to do with anything in this context.
you made an arse of yourself because you didn't know about the 1870 Act. Stop HYUFDing about it.
IANAL but it seems to me that whether a law is in force and whether prosecutions are brought under it are not entirely separate questions.
Considering that anyone accused of breaking a law is innocent until proven guilty, if the law is never enforced then how can you ever claim somebody is guilty of breaking the law? Everyone accused must be innocent under the law, for as long as prosecutions refuse to be brought.
If a law is routinely flouted for centuries and in those centuries the law is never enforced, then it seems to me that the law has been deprecated even if its formally on the books. Everyone who has allegedly broken the law is formally innocent of doing so surely, due to the fact that prosecutions are never brought?
Still going??
What you lack in knowledge of current affairs you certainly make up for in stamina and tortuous casuistry.
What odds on Dizzy Lizzy quoting Saint Francis of Assisi when she assumes office?
She might quote Adam Smith:
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
I do hope so.
A very key difference between the two candidates is that Liz Truss wants to return the economy to growth, quickly. Sunak, with his ladlefuls of economic misery, seems to be subscribed fully to the World Economic Forum's concept of actively shrinking the Western economies. Which I realise is an extraordinary claim, but it really does seem to be the case.
The sum total of that idiot's ambition is to stand next to his fellow world leaders (the shortest ones he can find one assumes) wearing an open-necked shirt. Deeply useless politician.
Undeniable that Starmer’s energy policy has caused a bounce.
Still, Liz has decent chance of overtaking Labour, at least initially, for what will undoubtedly be a short honeymoon.
Ben Walker of New Statesman said he wasnt sure if YouGov was an outlier but if one party is naval gazing and the other proposing a solution (even if its not geeat) why wouldnt they bounce?
What odds on Dizzy Lizzy quoting Saint Francis of Assisi when she assumes office?
She might quote Adam Smith:
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
Liz Truss promising opulence would be every bit as appropriate Margaret Thatcher promising harmony.
Mind, you the BBC would probably have a special "explainer" to tell people what the word meant ...
Mail going full on operation Liz forever tonight. Kwarteng says help is coming on energy. How unbearably exciting
It's hardly a surprise to see the Mail on Sunday backing a Conservative leader - they always will if the alternative is a Labour or indeed any non-Conservative Government.
The process of "selling" Liz Truss to the public is now beginning.
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.
Sure, the Enlistment Act 1870 is a dead letter. The last prosecution was in 1896, since when, thousands of British nationals have fought in foreign conflicts. And as you say, nobody prosecuted Attlee.
This discussion misses the elephant in the room. The reason why Truss should not have encouraged Britons to fight for Ukraine is that Britain is not at war with Russia.
Britain is not at war with Russia. That means if any of the Truss volunteers are captured, they can be executed because they are not prisoners of war because there is no war.
Attlee and Spain do not apply here because there was no Geneva Convention in 1930-odd.
The Geneva Conventions were (looking it up quickly) 1864, 1907, 1929, 1949, 1977, and 2005, so yes they did exist - and it depends which bits you are referring to.
I think.
If you want to point up the difference between the Spanish Civil War, and Ukraine's defence against an invasion, it is perhaps that in Ukraine they are fighting for the single Government as part of its recognised forces, which is more clear cut than Spain.
Volunteers in the 'Ukr Foreign Legion' is a somewhat different category from the UK people in Ukraine's official army who have established roots in the country. I think that all except one of the current UK POWs are in the latter category.
Incidentally, I assume that we only gave De Facto recognition to Franco's Govt for quite a long time (?)
Given the methodology, id say that supports yougov. By far the biggest opinium lead since methodology change
Bye bye Liz
She won’t turn this around. She’s spent all summer appealing to a small minority of Tory members, without having the political know how to understand the damage it’s doing to the wider base
Comments
There need to be more places in short haul distance that are both bone dry and reliably sunny in summer while staying below 30C. Apart from the Canaries.
As I said, I am not a fan of Truss but I was answering this point that simply by supporting people going to fight in Ukraine she was unfit to be PM. There are probably several hundred other reasons she is unfit before we get to that one.
Punishment of accessories.
Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act shall be liable to be tried and punished as a principal offender.
Why it says that I am not sure because that is impliedly the case under the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, unless the 1870 Act offences are non indictable.
what she said was
: “That is something people can make their own decisions about.
“The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.
“Absolutely, if people want to support that struggle I would support them in doing that.”
Very hard to argue that is not counselling an offence.
'The tournament was first played in 1883 as the Home Nations Championship among the four Home Nations of the United Kingdom – England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. However, England was excluded from the 1888 and 1889 tournaments due to their refusal to join the International Rugby Football Board. The tournament then became the Five Nations Championship in 1910 with the addition of France. The tournament was expanded in 2000 to become the Six Nations Championship with the addition of Italy.'
Kwarteng says help is coming on energy.
How unbearably exciting
The ageing, Brexit raging membership will love it until the party is out of office for two terms and possibly longer if Starmer goes for PR.
Get the stick out of your arse.
Or do you think that what Truss has said is 'worse' than what Attlee did from the perspective of this antiquated nonsense 'law'?
as per.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-03-09/foreign-secretary-liz-truss-now-says-britons-should-not-fight-in-ukraine
That is a different question to the question of whether people can go against that advice. As we've discussed ad nauseum for years now, law and advice are not the same thing.
Nowhere did Truss say that people are not allowed to go fight for Ukraine or its against the law as you're ridiculously claiming.
"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. "
You were wrong, and this was pointed out to you. The age of the relevant law is not in point, the lack of prosecutions is not in point, Attlee for a million reasons is not in point, and this is a side issue anyway: the legality or not of the act in question accounts for at most 2% of the overall fuckwittedness of Truss's words. As her own retraction admits and confirms.
The process of "selling" Liz Truss to the public is now beginning.
What matters is that its an antiquated law that has not been enforced for over a century during which time Clement Attlee and more have broken this so-called law without consequence because the law is a dead letter that isn't being enforced.
The lack of prosecutions, Attlee etc precisely are the point. If a law ceases to be enforced for hundreds of years and consistently violated and not enforced during that time then it ceases to meaningfully be 'the law'.
There was absolutely no fuckwittedness of Truss's words, her words were entirely appropriate. So too was reiterating the travel advice which is entirely consistent.
Britain is not at war with Russia. That means if any of the Truss volunteers are captured, they can be executed because they are not prisoners of war because there is no war.
Attlee and Spain do not apply here because there was no Geneva Convention in 1930-odd.
And where does it leave Britons captured by Russian forces?
Truss was outside the law because Britain is not at war with Russia. That makes her remarks doubly stupid because the corollary of that is that once captured, British volunteers can be treated as mercenaries and not prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention. And this is exactly what has now happened in some cases.
Attlee and Spain are red herrings here because the Geneva Convention did not exist in the 1930s.
Betfair next prime minister
1.08 Liz Truss 93%
10 Rishi Sunak 10%
Next Conservative leader
1.07 Liz Truss 93%
14 Rishi Sunak 7%
Absolutely British volunteers can be treated as mercenaries which is precisely why anyone who fights does so at their own risk, which is what Truss said all along and was just the same in Attlee's day.
you made an arse of yourself because you didn't know about the 1870 Act. Stop HYUFDing about it.
Edit - also I think, although ianae, that the 1949 Geneva Protocols were at least partly designed to incorporate The Hague Conventions of 1907, which did address the status of civilians including civilians under arms and mercenaries.
My only point was that it has happened before and no one would have dreamed of prosecuting Attlee when he did it.
And I would suggest that public support for Ukraine and those fighting for them is probably even stronger today than was support for the Republican side in Spain in the 1930s.
Stop HYUFDing about it.
Is this a new PB euphemism for @HYUFD ??????
Still unclear whether they will be forcibly relegated to Division Two, but since Derbyshire are unlikely at this moment to be promoted that wouldn't presumably make a difference to his decision.
But that is a separate question entirely as to whether it is, in fact, against the law, and whether Cabinet Ministers should encourage lawbreaking, even if no one is really going to prosecute. Certainly it is an entirely separate point to arguing that because it is not prosecuted it is no longer a law at all. Until repealed it is law.
It's not like it is the Easter Act 1928, never enforced.
A 10-year-old girl was found paddling 150 metres off the coast of an Anglesey beach without a life jacket on. RNLI volunteers spotted the youngster on a "boogie board", while other concerned beachgoers had also seen her and were heading out to help. But her parents were "oblivious to it all", the RNLI said. In a statement on Facebook, RNLI's Moelfre crew said the incident unfolded after they had been called to other incidents nearby.
They said: "Twice [on Friday], the volunteers were tasked to launch the Inshore lifeboat 'Enfys 2' due to incidents that involved paddleboards and a kayak. The first launch request came at 10.31 am after two paddleboarders appeared to struggle in the strong offshore wind. "The second shout came at 2.38 pm after reports of one person onboard a kayak was seen waving their paddle to attract assistance again due to the 27-knot offshore wind. On both occasions, the casualties were assisted ashore and given sea safety advice by the RNLI crew and the mobile coastguard team."
They added: "After both shouts, the RNLI crew swept all the popular beaches from St Davids to Lligwy, advising several people on the water of the risks involved during any offshore wind. During the sweep on the first shout at Lligwy, the lifeboat crew came across a 10-year-old girl on her own on a boogie board approx. 150 meters offshore. No lifejacket.
"Concerned members of the public were starting to walk out to help her.
Her parents were at the top of the beach, oblivious to it all.
The RNLI crew escorted her back in and gave the parents stern safety advice.
Although I think Warwickshire may overtake both Glos and Notts.
Considering that anyone accused of breaking a law is innocent until proven guilty, if the law is never enforced then how can you ever claim somebody is guilty of breaking the law? Everyone accused must be innocent under the law, for as long as prosecutions refuse to be brought.
If a law is routinely flouted for centuries and in those centuries the law is never enforced, then it seems to me that the law has been deprecated even if its formally on the books. Everyone who has allegedly broken the law is formally innocent of doing so surely, due to the fact that prosecutions are never brought?
Tsk.
Florence is "invivibile" in August. That is why the locals flee to the hills or coast, leaving it for tourists.
My cousins, who live in another part of Tuscany, are wonderfully bitchy and funny about Florentines.
Still, enjoy.
Shamefully, the Irish harassed their citizens who fought for freedom during World War 2 while self-righteously remaining neutral.
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
@ObserverUK poll 🚨
Our latest poll shows Labour's lead rising from to 8 points over the Conservatives, up from 3 points a fortnight ago.
Con 31% (-3)
Lab 39% (+2)
Lib Dem 10% (-2)
Green 7% (+1) https://t.co/CO1luU0dxy
Given the methodology, id say that supports yougov. By far the biggest opinium lead since methodology change
What you lack in knowledge of current affairs you certainly make up for in stamina and tortuous casuistry.
Awful polling for the Tories
Still, Liz has decent chance of overtaking Labour, at least initially, for what will undoubtedly be a short honeymoon.
A very key difference between the two candidates is that Liz Truss wants to return the economy to growth, quickly. Sunak, with his ladlefuls of economic misery, seems to be subscribed fully to the World Economic Forum's concept of actively shrinking the Western economies. Which I realise is an extraordinary claim, but it really does seem to be the case.
The sum total of that idiot's ambition is to stand next to his fellow world leaders (the shortest ones he can find one assumes) wearing an open-necked shirt. Deeply useless politician.
Mind, you the BBC would probably have a special "explainer" to tell people what the word meant ...
https://digital.nls.uk/recipes/themes/soups/traditional.html
I think.
If you want to point up the difference between the Spanish Civil War, and Ukraine's defence against an invasion, it is perhaps that in Ukraine they are fighting for the single Government as part of its recognised forces, which is more clear cut than Spain.
Volunteers in the 'Ukr Foreign Legion' is a somewhat different category from the UK people in Ukraine's official army who have established roots in the country. I think that all except one of the current UK POWs are in the latter category.
Incidentally, I assume that we only gave De Facto recognition to Franco's Govt for quite a long time (?)