Starting to look a bit grim for Sunak now, unless he can mount some very late comeback from here. Even more difficult now polling closed and result announced in 58 hours.
Maybe if he could come across as a real person not some AI construct it might help. Rish Headroom, what a joke.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
“Do we definitely want to go with *brighter* future?”
“Why not?”
“Well there’s that thing about 70 per cent of pubs and shops shutting down because they can’t afford to switch the lights on that you’re completely ignoring?”
She's doing all this really badly as part of some kink that I can't begin to fathom. Where's Leon when we need him?
Where's option C that she's not doing badly and is about to be made Prime Minister as a result?
Incidentally I think a lot of people in this country know full well who is to blame for the high energy prices, and that it's Putin even if the usual suspects want to blame the Tories for it.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
Citizens assemblies really should become part of the way the UK does democracy.
They are effectively souped up juries, and the go-to scholar is James Fishkin (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford).
Brexit will only stick, in my view, if it is understood as a democratic renewal, and citizens assemblies - which foster debate, participation, and consensus, are surely part of the prescription.
Would CAs not just reinforce the nature of a society where (listen to R4 Today for a bit) everyone without exception can think of things the government should pay for but few worry about where this cash comes from.
They might be even worse than parliament at thinking that it is obvious our grandchildren will be rich enough to pay our bills as well as theirs. Two trillion and counting. And Mrs Truss sounds as bad.
Citizens assemblies really should become part of the way the UK does democracy.
They are effectively souped up juries, and the go-to scholar is James Fishkin (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford).
Brexit will only stick, in my view, if it seem as a democratic renewal, and citizens assemblies - which foster debate, participation, and consensus, are surely part of the prescription.
Citizens Assemblies do seem able to get people together to debate the evidence and consult in a nonpolitical way, when constituted by a jury type selection system, and to come up with reasonable proposals. In some ways a more democratic form of Royal Commission.
There are all sorts of different forms of democracy, and for some issues they may be the way forward. It is about tailoring the tool to the job.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
You're utterly ridiculous.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
Here's the latest US jobs report: "The U.S. labor market added 315,000 jobs in August, hitting a 20-month streak in strong job growth that’s powering an economy through ominously high inflation.
The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month. . . . Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/
There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.
Inflation at 13.9% in the USA then, given it was 5.4% last July. Not great.
Eh ?
Inflation is NOT at 13.9% here.
I believe the UK is the only country in the G7 with double digit inflation.
This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).
Yet I am 58.
One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.
So - there is a year missing.
Did Starmer have a gap year?
I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.
What did he do in that year?
Dunno. But noticed this.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."
I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
It would appear that Starmer left school in 1981, but that he was at Leeds from 1982-85 (according to Lord Ashcroft). So that would suggest that he did have a gap year...
Did he try for Oxbridge? My school (a different Surrey grammar) had a 'Scholarship 6th' whereby you went back for a term and a bit and crammed for the entrance exam. That left you 6 months to kill but was a handy way of getting a good rugby player back for another season.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion for matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
We have elections to deal with matters of controversy, we have had too many referendums as it is too
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
You're utterly ridiculous.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
Citizens assemblies really should become part of the way the UK does democracy.
They are effectively souped up juries, and the go-to scholar is James Fishkin (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford).
Brexit will only stick, in my view, if it seem as a democratic renewal, and citizens assemblies - which foster debate, participation, and consensus, are surely part of the prescription.
Citizens Assemblies do seem able to get people together to debate the evidence and consult in a nonpolitical way, when constituted by a jury type selection system, and to come up with reasonable proposals. In some ways a more democratic form of Royal Commission.
There are all sorts of different forms of democracy, and for some issues they may be the way forward. It is about tailoring the tool to the job.
I think it because of the stupid way the Washington Post wrote it.
"Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year" implies it has gone up by 8.5% from the previous year's inflation number which was 5.4%. Hence the 13.9%.
I assume the actual inflation figure is supposed to be 8.5% which means it has risen 3.1%
They meant “prices rose 8.5% in year to July, an increase of x on previous months figure”?
What shoddy journalism. They would never get away with posting here.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
You're utterly ridiculous.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
Churchill's policy was certainly to keep India in the Empire, there was no mass revolt from the Indians like there was from the American Colonies in the US War of Independence. Indeed many Indians held positions in the army, the civil service, the courts etc
Here's the latest US jobs report: "The U.S. labor market added 315,000 jobs in August, hitting a 20-month streak in strong job growth that’s powering an economy through ominously high inflation.
The unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.7 percent, according to a monthly jobs report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, with 344,000 more people unemployed than the previous month. . . . Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year, while wages rose by only 5.2 percent during the same period." source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/02/august-jobs-report/
There are about two open jobs for every job seeker.
Inflation at 13.9% in the USA then, given it was 5.4% last July. Not great.
Eh ?
Inflation is NOT at 13.9% here.
I believe the UK is the only country in the G7 with double digit inflation.
I think it because of the stupid way the Washington Post wrote it.
"Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year" implies it has gone up by 8.5% from the previous year's inflation number which was 5.4%. Hence the 13.9%.
I assume the actual inflation figure is supposed to be 8.5% which means it has risen 3.1%
“Do we definitely want to go with *brighter* future?”
“Why not?”
“Well there’s that thing about 70 per cent of pubs and shops shutting down because they can’t afford to switch the lights on that you’re completely ignoring?”
She's doing all this really badly as part of some kink that I can't begin to fathom. Where's Leon when we need him?
Where's option C that she's not doing badly and is about to be made Prime Minister as a result?
Incidentally I think a lot of people in this country know full well who is to blame for the high energy prices, and that it's Putin even if the usual suspects want to blame the Tories for it.
She got one really big call right. To not join the rush of resigning ministers two months ago. To Not Betray Boris, in other words.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).
Yet I am 58.
One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.
So - there is a year missing.
Did Starmer have a gap year?
I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.
What did he do in that year?
Dunno. But noticed this.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."
I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
It would appear that Starmer left school in 1981, but that he was at Leeds from 1982-85 (according to Lord Ashcroft). So that would suggest that he did have a gap year...
Did he try for Oxbridge? My school (a different Surrey grammar) had a 'Scholarship 6th' whereby you went back for a term and a bit and crammed for the entrance exam. That left you 6 months to kill but was a handy way of getting a good rugby player back for another season.
Citizens assemblies really should become part of the way the UK does democracy.
They are effectively souped up juries, and the go-to scholar is James Fishkin (Yale, Cambridge, Stanford).
Brexit will only stick, in my view, if it is understood as a democratic renewal, and citizens assemblies - which foster debate, participation, and consensus, are surely part of the prescription.
Would CAs not just reinforce the nature of a society where (listen to R4 Today for a bit) everyone without exception can think of things the government should pay for but few worry about where this cash comes from.
They might be even worse than parliament at thinking that it is obvious our grandchildren will be rich enough to pay our bills as well as theirs. Two trillion and counting. And Mrs Truss sounds as bad.
By all accounts Truss is intelligent (A levels in Maths and Further Maths) but is it the wrong type of intelligence for being prime minister?
Does Truss have the emotional intelligence to be able to relate to the public at large?
Whilst she may be analytical and hard working, will she understand the actual stresses and strains of her policies on a typical voter?
Is Truss a more in theory rather than in practice politician?
Boris was better at the latter than the former.
Yes, I think she will struggle. People joked about the Maybot, but Theresa May could do empathy, or at least a simulacrum of it better than Truss seems able to do so. She really seemed to mean that stuff on racial equality in justice that later got junked.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
You're utterly ridiculous.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
Churchill's policy was certainly to keep India in the Empire, there was no mass revolt from the Indians like there was from the American Colonies in the US War of Independence. Indeed many Indians held positions in the army, the civil service, the courts etc
I thought India was in the Commonwealth, as the Empire has evolved into.
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law. That they have amended the law so that there is no automatic right as there previously was will in essence be why they have done so.
We're back to British bloody mindedness. "Its legal to revoke her British citizenship as our read of Bangladeshi law says she is a Bangladeshi citizen" says the UK. "Read our old law how you like" says Bangladesh, "she isn't a citizen". Britain decided its read of Bangladeshi law triumphs Bangladesh's own read, removes her British citizenship then says "not our fault" when she is immediately rendered stateless.
Would our government accept the same in reverse? Someone who isn't recognised as a British citizen but could have been is suspected of something illegal here, gets their other nationality revoked because "they're British" and therefore our problem. We'd welcome our new citizen would we...?
When did the Bangladeshi government change its law? Before or after the Home Secretary's decision?
If it was before, and if it had been enacted before, then that would be relevant to the case. If it was after, then its not.
Yes other countries courts are absolutely entitled to read British law and come to a judgment under the law, even if it contradicts something the British government says.
Foreign governments can do what they like with regards to English law. Does that mean we have to accept their interpretation of it? We made her de facto stateless. Which isn't strictly illegal as our law requires de jure, but its still immensely twatty.
I don't care about the individual case as much as I do about the principle.
The principle is that courts follow the rule of law, which is de jure, not de facto.
If you want the courts to stop following the rule of law, then what would you like to replace it?
I want laws which aren't as amoral and twatty as this one and expect a future government to change the law. De Jure, De Facto - in practice it is the exact same thing. She can't come back to the UK, she can't go to Bangladesh and the Syrians don't want to do anything either.
Do you think Bangladesh is also in the wrong?
Of course! They don't want anything to do with her - but as we're washing our own hands of her can we take the moral high ground?
Why do you want to claim the moral high ground? That sounds like British exceptionalism.
Just the medium ground would do - don't take decisions of this sort purely to get good headlines in the tabloids.
Or flattering opinion pieces from the worthy?
Show me some of that and I'll also be unimpressed.
But here it's the other way. Javid shafting Begun reminds me of Ed Balls and Sharon Shoesmith.
Lab or Con, doesn't matter, the government shouldn't go after individuals to please the red tops.
The government doesn't do things to please the red tops. It does things to please the sort of voters who the red tops are trying to sell newspapers to. Who happen to be in the right, some of the time.
Yes, the red tops as a whole - editors, owners, readers. They're sometimes right? For sure they are. Everyone is sometimes right about something. But you don't want them driving the behaviour of the government towards private individuals.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
By "a consensus" people typically mean "my own views" to be found by that commission or assembly and try and make that the consensus without going through the rigmarole of winning an election on it.
Whoever shapes or sets the terms of reference of any assembly or commission can guide it to the "right" result.
If you want a consensus, put your policy in a manifesto and win an election over it.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).
Yet I am 58.
One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.
So - there is a year missing.
Did Starmer have a gap year?
I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.
What did he do in that year?
Dunno. But noticed this.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."
I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
It would appear that Starmer left school in 1981, but that he was at Leeds from 1982-85 (according to Lord Ashcroft). So that would suggest that he did have a gap year...
Did he try for Oxbridge? My school (a different Surrey grammar) had a 'Scholarship 6th' whereby you went back for a term and a bit and crammed for the entrance exam. That left you 6 months to kill but was a handy way of getting a good rugby player back for another season.
He did postgrad at Oxford, at St Edmund Hall
And got a First, which suggests he would have been in the group good enough to apply, but not get in.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
Unless cabinet colleagues leaned across and said, let’s have a rethink on this one.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
More likely we would have lost India from the Commonwealth than kept them in the Empire.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
By "a consensus" people typically mean "my own views" to be found by that commission or assembly and try and make that the consensus without going through the rigmarole of winning an election on it.
Whoever shapes or sets the terms of reference of any assembly or commission can guide it to the "right" result.
If you want a consensus, put your policy in a manifesto and win an election over it.
A lot of mistrust of fellow citizens here by the usual suspects.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
You're utterly ridiculous.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
Churchill's policy was certainly to keep India in the Empire, there was no mass revolt from the Indians like there was from the American Colonies in the US War of Independence. Indeed many Indians held positions in the army, the civil service, the courts etc
I thought India was in the Commonwealth, as the Empire has evolved into.
India is an independent republic, the Commonwealth is an even looser alliance than the EU now is
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
This has got me thinking. He graduated the same year I did from Leeds (1985).
Yet I am 58.
One year difference will be down to his early birthday wrt the school year.
So - there is a year missing.
Did Starmer have a gap year?
I can't recall this ever being mentioned before.
What did he do in that year?
Dunno. But noticed this.
"He was a junior exhibitioner at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama until the age of 18, and played the flute, piano, recorder and violin."
I didn't know that at all. It's all been violin lessons with Fatboy Slim. He actually must have been/be pretty damn good.
It would appear that Starmer left school in 1981, but that he was at Leeds from 1982-85 (according to Lord Ashcroft). So that would suggest that he did have a gap year...
Did he try for Oxbridge? My school (a different Surrey grammar) had a 'Scholarship 6th' whereby you went back for a term and a bit and crammed for the entrance exam. That left you 6 months to kill but was a handy way of getting a good rugby player back for another season.
Quite possibly. Oxford and Cambridge used to have an entrance exam in either 4th or 7th term of Sixth form. A few friends did 7th term then worked for a bit, but not really known as a gap year then.
I passed it 4th term and was interviewed at Oxford, and offered a place to do chemistry, but chose London and Medical School instead.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
Are these figures definitely correct. 11% seems a lot of "other"
Add them up again.
I was referring to the UK-wide figures posted by CHB
Ah I see. Yes, you're right - 11% is a lot of "other" in the Westminster VI poll. Some would go to RefUK but no more than 5% to judge from recent polling.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
By "a consensus" people typically mean "my own views" to be found by that commission or assembly and try and make that the consensus without going through the rigmarole of winning an election on it.
Whoever shapes or sets the terms of reference of any assembly or commission can guide it to the "right" result.
If you want a consensus, put your policy in a manifesto and win an election over it.
A lot of mistrust of fellow citizens here by the usual suspects.
I have 67 million fellow citizens and I trust the adult ones who vote with their votes.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
That is completely delusional. Britain had neither the financial, military or political ability to hold the Empire against its will. We tried in Kenya, Malaysia, and Aden but realised that handing over to friendly independent governments was better.
France failed in Vietnam and Algeria when it tried, as did Portugal in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. We would have fared no better. The best thing we did with the Empire was to leave it, mostly fairly orderly. The obvious exception being Indian partition.
Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."
On topic, Cyclefree raises highly pertinent questions.
Governments regularly, of course, receive legal advice to try to ensure its decisions are lawful and to defend challenges from those who claim they aren't.
But that just isn't the situation. This has absolutely nothing to do with Government decisions. Johnson is facing a House of Commons disciplinary process into things he personally said in the Chamber, and their somewhat strained relationship with reality.
If any of us was facing a disciplinary process at work, we might quite fancy getting some legal advice on the lawfulness of the process, options for challenging the outcome and so on. But if we do, we might be able to get help from a trade union or whatever, but our employer is highly unlikely to be paying up front for that (if we won there might be an issue of them covering reasonable costs but it certainly isn't the starting point). If we went to our employer and asked them to pay for our lawyer, they'd laugh. If we said it was Lord Pannick QC they'd fall off their chair.
I can't see any justification whatsoever for the Cabinet Office (and ultimately us) paying for this advice. In light of Legal Aid cuts, it's absolutely taking the p1ss that the PM gets a personal exemption at our expense. Particularly given Pannick is, shall we say, at the very top end of the market and his invoice will basically read "Three metric f***tons of cash plus VAT - pls pay within 14 days".
not cabinet office, private solrs instructed on behalf of fatboi
This doesn't really answer Cyclefree's questions, nor does it say what you think.
The Government Legal Department are basically the in-house lawyers for all government departments. They're headed by the Treasury Solicitor (currently Susanna McGibbon, after Jonathan Jones resigned over NI Protocol and Government plans to break the law in a "limited and specific way") and reports to the Attorney General but it's all rather arm's length as they are meant to be able to advise independently.
Generally, if a Government department wants legal advice, it goes to the GLD (who don't in practice sit in one building - they are physically scattered around departments. GLD would potentially instruct private practice solicitors if they lacked someone with appropriate expertise or there was a bandwidth issue (e.g. they got extra bodies for COVID and Brexit) and would instruct a barrister sometimes too.
In theory, a department could decide not to go via the GLD at all, and simply appoint private solicitors directly - but it'd be REALLY odd behaviour and the suspicion would be that it'd be fishy. The Jones resignation indicates the GLD is pretty independent minded and you don't necessarily get the advice you want, so you have to suspect if a Government department bypasses the GLD, they don't want the best legal answer, but instead a clever (but very possibly wrong) argument of the type you can pay for if you prefer palatable over accurate.
In general, solicitors formally instruct barristers like Pannick, so the contractual relationship is arm's length from the ultimate client. So "my" barrister in a case is normally actually my solicitor's barrister being pedantic. That's been relaxed a bit (it used to be that ONLY solicitors could instruct barristers) but that isn't the situation here.
So Pannick is saying he was instructed via Peters & Peters solicitors and NOT via the GLD. However, Peters & Peters were almost certainly instructed and paid for by the Cabinet Office (based on the Government messaging about "Government advice" and so on) rather than Johnson personally.
It's all incredibly dodgy. Why bypass the GLD? And, if it's right that the Cabinet Office did instruct Peters & Peters, giving them authority to appoint Pannick at doubtless astronomical expense, why on earth was that deemed to be Cabinet Office business and worth spaffing taxpayers' money on?
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
Though Churchills wilderness years were because of his opposition to Indian home rule. Confronting Hitler and rearmament came later.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
By "a consensus" people typically mean "my own views" to be found by that commission or assembly and try and make that the consensus without going through the rigmarole of winning an election on it.
Whoever shapes or sets the terms of reference of any assembly or commission can guide it to the "right" result.
If you want a consensus, put your policy in a manifesto and win an election over it.
So putting an extremely complicated constitutional question to a citizens assembly of, let's say, the entire electorate would in your view be a profoundly stupid thing to do?
As per IPSOS Keir Starmer is the most popular politician in the UK
Starmer technically has the joint highest favourable rating of top UK politicians with Boris. Though yes both clearly lead Sunak and Truss with Mori in terms of favourables so he has got an early Christmas present from the Tories when they got rid of Boris!
Jonny Bairstow: England batter ruled out of third Test and T20 World Cup
England batter Jonny Bairstow has been ruled out of the third Test against South Africa and the Twenty20 World Cup after sustaining a possible broken left leg while playing golf on Friday.
The 32-year-old slipped walking to a tee box and will see a specialist to ascertain the extent of the injury.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
That is completely delusional. Britain had neither the financial, military or political ability to hold the Empire against its will. We tried in Kenya, Malaysia, and Aden but realised that handing over to friendly independent governments was better.
France failed in Vietnam and Algeria when it tried, as did Portugal in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. We would have fared no better. The best thing we did with the Empire was to leave it, mostly fairly orderly. The obvious exception being Indian partition.
Everything would have turned on the attitude of the Indian Army.
My impression is that most native officers were by the 1940's, quite pro-British, but at the same time, they had concluded that it was time for independence.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Extinction Rebellion supporters have superglued around the Speakers Chair inside the commons chamber.
Right now inside Parliament a speech is being read out demanding a Citizens' Assembly Now.
Rather makes you wonder what they think the HoC is.
Parliament is a citizens assembly. It is voted for by all citizens eligible to vote.
They just want a group to rubber stamp their own worldview.
It really does beg the question what on earth is the security doing there. It is lucky it is benign eco-cranks and not a suicide bomber.
Citizens Assembly is done by random selection from a population, not by election. Similar to jury selection.
We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, we elect the citizens we want to represent us in Parliament at general elections to make our laws
And?
Citizens Assemblies dilute the whole power of the elected House of Commons
In what way? And would you say they dilute “the whole power” more or less than referendums, the House of Lords, local government, and the devolved nations?
Referendums are irrelevant unless Parliament implements the result, see 2017-2019, in which case CAs are just a pointless talking shop.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
You seem not really to understand CAs. They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
By "a consensus" people typically mean "my own views" to be found by that commission or assembly and try and make that the consensus without going through the rigmarole of winning an election on it.
Whoever shapes or sets the terms of reference of any assembly or commission can guide it to the "right" result.
If you want a consensus, put your policy in a manifesto and win an election over it.
So putting an extremely complicated constitutional question to a citizens assembly of, let's say, the entire electorate would in your view be a profoundly stupid thing to do?
Quite the opposite. I'm saying the two valid options are we elect an assembly whereby everyone gets one vote (ie the Commons) or the Commons refers the matter back to all of the voters (IE a Referendum).
A hodgepodge of a hundred or so people is not an appropriate assembly since it's excluding the views and votes of everybody else.
Pannick's advice says that counsel were instructed by Peters & Peters. There's no mention of the Government Legal Department. Is this advice to Johnson (the man), or the PM (the office)? If the former, then did he pay for it? And why is it published on http://gov.uk?
If the latter: on what basis could this be considered Government business? What civil servant (if any) agreed to spend public money, and use the Government website, for this purpose? Hope somebody asks the gvt these Qs. There is a very discomfiting blurring of boundaries here.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
That is completely delusional. Britain had neither the financial, military or political ability to hold the Empire against its will. We tried in Kenya, Malaysia, and Aden but realised that handing over to friendly independent governments was better.
France failed in Vietnam and Algeria when it tried, as did Portugal in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. We would have fared no better. The best thing we did with the Empire was to leave it, mostly fairly orderly. The obvious exception being Indian partition.
Except there was no Indian revolt like that in Algeria or Angola. Indeed Indians were part of most of the core elements of imperial rule in India from the army and police to the civil service and judiciary.
Once they were given independence by Attlee however partition was inevitable or there would have been civil war between Hindus and Muslims
Begum’s Court of Appeal judgement is at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/918.html but I cannot find the original SIAC hearing that concluded she has Bangladeshi citizenship. If someone can find that, it should show the court’s reasoning.
I note the Court of Appeal judgement states, “SIAC found (in its decision on the first preliminary issue) that she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship by descent through her parents by virtue of section 5 of the Bangladesh Citizenship Act 1951.” Not is eligible for, but “holds Bangladeshi citizenship”.
Which we know to be a lie.
Your argument that it is a lie is, presumably, that the Bangladeshi government said she isn’t a citizen. The SIAC judgement contains a very lengthy consideration of this point and they conclude that, basically, the Bangladeshi government may say what it says for political purposes, but that Bangladeshi law says otherwise. I am neither a British or Bangladeshi lawyer, so I cannot follow the intricacies of the ruling. Are you able to explain, in detail, why you think the SIAC ruling is legally wrong?
The Bangladeshi government categorically reject SIAC's statement about Bangladeshi law.
And why do you take a statement made for political purposes by the government of Bangladesh as Holy Writ when you'd never do the same for such a statement made by the government of, to choose a country completely at random, the United Kingdom?
Huh? I've said repeatedly that our own government breaks our own laws. Bangladeshi law says she is a citizen. But if the government of Bangladesh says she isn't then it absolutely is the holy writ with regards to Bangladesh adopting her. Same with Patel. I may not like her but she is Home Secretary and she absolutely can keep people away and wait to be challenged in the court.
Your line about political points is key though. It is a political point that we want to wash our hands of people we don't like, removing their legal right of citizenship. Its a political point that Bangladesh doesn't want to recognise the legal right of citizenship in the other direction. Governments pass and interpret and implement laws as they see fit.
The Government of a country absolutely is not holy writ, the law trumps it. If the Government wants to change the law it needs to convince the legislature to do so, it can't just contradict it. “Be ye ever so high, the law is higher than ye.”
This point from the SIAC judgment seems to hit the nail on the head.
We can only pronounce on our own rule of law and own own laws. I agree that the letter of the law provides her Bangladeshi citizenship which is good enough for the English law in this case. I get that. My argument is that saying "de jure" she is a citizen of x doesn't mean shit if x say she isn't.
Our law was written explicitly to prevent the UK from making someone stateless which it cannot do under UN treaty. In this case we know we have made her stateless - because the Bangladeshi government cannot be any clearer - but hide behind de jure. The spirit of the law matters as much as the letter as you know...
It seems the courts put more stock on the letter of the law than the spirit of it though.
Saying she isn't a citizen of Bangladesh doesn't make it so if the law says she is, even if Bangladesh are denying her the civil liberties according to her status under their law.
Should the law be changed to be updated more with the spirit of the law? That's a different question, and if it is that should go through Parliament and apply from then on.
All laws are written as an act of parliament - the letter - and then often get revised in the courts with regards to how that specifically is applied - the spirit.
Bangladeshi law isn't really the issue here because they have disapplied it. Is that legal in Bangladesh? Would it stand up in court in Bangladesh? Doesn't matter, because they have done it and she is not a citizen.
As our law explicitly is written to ensure we do not make people stateless - and she is now stateless - we have a problem if we care about such things.
And the UK Courts have quite rightly said they will stick to the rule of law and not sugarcoat or vindicate countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh that violate the rule, so sticking with the rule of law is our courts established spirit here. That is long established precedent.
She is a citizen there. You can keep saying she isn't until you're blue in the face, but the law is the law and that is how the courts should and must operate.
The rule of law applies to our own laws. We can't apply our standards to other states who think differently - are we proposing to take Bangladesh to court for denying her legal citizenship having just denied her our legal citizenship?
Its probably a good job you are only a keyboard warrior and don't actually have any real world experience of anything. Like HY you can make all the blustering statements you like, doesn't make them actually apply. Like you read of the English rule of law on Bangladeshi law. They don't have to give a rat fuck what a court here thinks just as we don't of what their courts say about us.
I find myself interested by this discussion having paid little attention to the case in the past. So I went to look for a summary and found the following from the European Journal of International Law:
It is nice that they set the argument out so clearly for non lawyers and they, at least, seem quite clear that under myriad different Bangladeshi laws Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen at least until she turns 21.
On the basis of what is written there it seems a pretty open and shut case.
Fair enough; I stand corrected!
But are you corrected OKC?
I am often minded to agree with @Richard_Tyndall , but in this instance I am not convinced, even by the Bangladeshi legal expert's judgement he quotes. There is much pinhead dancing to reach the conclusion the expert reaches.
I step back a couple of paces and contest that Javid's decision was executed entirely for party political advantage at the time.
That that the decision was executed entirely for party political advantage is unquestionable. Sadly it appears there was legal basis for it.
Yep - but I do think the legality of it is a 2nd order issue, interesting as it is to debate.
For one thing we have an Umpires Call type situation here whereby once the HS says the magic words "national security" the Courts have to see clear and obvious error on his part to outlaw his decision. High bar, not met here. So, ok, it was legal.
But there's legal and there's legal. Eg a wealthy person sets up a dubious tax avoidance scheme just a hair's breadth the right side of the law. That's legal. Or alternatively they don't do this, they keep things simple and pay their taxes like anybody else. That's legal too. Both courses of action are legal. Does this mean there's no material difference between them? Does it mean a reasonable person can't assess one as being right and one as less right and arguably wrong?
No it doesn't. Legal and right is better than legal and wrong.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
Unlike Scotland, however, there was no big element in Indian politics, that was strongly opposed to independence.
Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."
Never been drunk in a public place? Never committed the act of speeding? Failed to be totally honest on a tax return?
The covid laws were a joke, but the bitter part is those framing did not expect the bulk of the population to follow them quite so severely. I mean why would you? They were clearly nonsensical. The implication that you can only get covid while upright in a pub, but not when sitting.
We were a bunch of saps, for sure, but trying to equate a FPN that would not have been issued if police had intervened in person to more serious breaking of the law is beneath you.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
In a new book "Independent Nation: should Wales Leave the UK?" Alun Cairns admits the Conservative Government never intended EU money previously allocated to Wales by the EU would be replaced by Westminster once Britain left the EU. You never saw that on the side of a bus.
Is this the source? Quoted in new book, Independent Nation: Should Wales Leave the UK? former Welsh Secretary Alun Cairns admitted that the Conservative Government never intended for decisions on the spending of the replacement EU cash to remain in Wales. Wales used to receive a huge amount of money from the EU before Brexit.
As part of their 2019 general election campaign the Conservatives promised that Wales would receive "not a penny less" as a result of Brexit. Many people took this to mean that the Welsh Government would have a role in allocating this money (as they have done for 22 years as part of the EU). However, the UK Government has recently confirmed that it will allocate these funds directly through its new Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). Those bits you left out seem awfully pertinent.
Contrary to legislation. Extra vires on the part of HMG, as they pertain to devolved areas.
Is that ultra vires in the way the Scottish government having a binding referendum without Westminster approval is ultra vires? Or a different kind of ultra vires?
Ultra vires in the legislation the Conservative governments have passed. They've been actually doing it for some time.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
That is completely delusional. Britain had neither the financial, military or political ability to hold the Empire against its will. We tried in Kenya, Malaysia, and Aden but realised that handing over to friendly independent governments was better.
France failed in Vietnam and Algeria when it tried, as did Portugal in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. We would have fared no better. The best thing we did with the Empire was to leave it, mostly fairly orderly. The obvious exception being Indian partition.
Except there was no Indian revolt like that in Algeria or Angola. Indeed Indians were part of most of the core elements of imperial rule in India from the army and police to the civil service and judiciary.
Once they were given independence by Attlee however partition was inevitable or there would have been civil war between Hindus and Muslims
There were a considerable number of Indian revolts! Most notably 1857, but also Gandhi with his Quit India campaign of 1942.
Just because some Indians served in the ICS and Armed forces doesn't mean they would have sided with Britain against their own people. See France in Vietnam and Algeria, Portugal in Lusophone Africa for how it happens.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
It’s an interesting thought experiment, though. A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.
“Go Canada”, I said.
Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.
UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.
The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
NEW Survation Labour member polling for @LabourList. Members overwhelmingly in favour of Public Sector rail, mail, energy and water. 94% think recent rail strikes are justified. 73% say Labour MPs should be joining picket lines with members of unions affiliated to the party: https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1565720996623032324
Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."
NEW Survation Labour member polling for @LabourList. Members overwhelmingly in favour of Public Sector rail, mail, energy and water. 94% think recent rail strikes are justified. 73% say Labour MPs should be joining picket lines with members of unions affiliated to the party: https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1565720996623032324
Well we know that even Starmer has committed to renationalise rail, if Labour won a majority at the next election then mail, energy and water would likely soon be renationalised too
Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."
NEW Survation Labour member polling for @LabourList. Members overwhelmingly in favour of Public Sector rail, mail, energy and water. 94% think recent rail strikes are justified. 73% say Labour MPs should be joining picket lines with members of unions affiliated to the party: https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1565720996623032324
Well we know that even Starmer has committed to renationalise rail, if Labour won a majority at the next election then mail, energy and water would likely soon be renationalised too
Starmer has, wrongly in my opinion, ruled them out.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
Don't you think that Indians should be allowed to rule themselves? Or are you suggesting a confederation in which British and Indian voters would have had equal say on how decisions were reached? Scotland has devolution but it also has MPs at Westminster so it's hardly a useful parallel for a colonial relationship.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
You're utterly ridiculous.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
Which countries “deserve” to be a superpower?
I predict you will regret asking this. But hats off for being willing.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.
However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
Probably right. Although there might not be an “America”, but rather a number of States that would be peers of England.
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
Indeed, especially as Canada would have been part of British North America. Unless BNA was Partitioned of course.
Although it does presuppose that a 'British North America' would have been as attractive to immigrants as the USA was. Judging by the history of Canada that isn't a certainty.
If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.
Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%
The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come
The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary
I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame
Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.
However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
If India was still part of the UK then leveling up would have a completely different meaning!
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
It’s an interesting thought experiment, though. A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.
“Go Canada”, I said.
Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.
UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.
The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
That is completely delusional. Britain had neither the financial, military or political ability to hold the Empire against its will. We tried in Kenya, Malaysia, and Aden but realised that handing over to friendly independent governments was better.
France failed in Vietnam and Algeria when it tried, as did Portugal in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. We would have fared no better. The best thing we did with the Empire was to leave it, mostly fairly orderly. The obvious exception being Indian partition.
Except there was no Indian revolt like that in Algeria or Angola. Indeed Indians were part of most of the core elements of imperial rule in India from the army and police to the civil service and judiciary.
Once they were given independence by Attlee however partition was inevitable or there would have been civil war between Hindus and Muslims
There were a considerable number of Indian revolts! Most notably 1857, but also Gandhi with his Quit India campaign of 1942.
Just because some Indians served in the ICS and Armed forces doesn't mean they would have sided with Britain against their own people. See France in Vietnam and Algeria, Portugal in Lusophone Africa for how it happens.
Gandhi's Quit India campaign was largely peaceful and was not successful as India remained in the Empire throughout WW2
The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.
Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
In America in domestic parliaments for each American colony, the UK government and the Crown however would have ensured Westminster remained mainly British. It was still an Empire after all, not a Federation and the British having won the War of Independence and beaten the colonists they would have been in little position to argue
That would never have survived centuries since and if Britain had tried that there'd have ultimately been another war of independence.
The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.
But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
If we still had it on Churchill's return to power in 1951 do you seriously think we would still have it now?
Who knows, Wilson I suppose might have given India independence when he got in in 1964. However had Churchill won re election in 1945 there is no doubt he would have kept India firmly in the Empire
India was on course for Dominion status after 1931. After 1945, the dominant political parties would have been Congress and the Muslim League (both of whom wanted independence, although the latter may have settled for autonomy).
So does the SNP, they could have just been given more devolution like Scotland and as you suggest that may well have satisfied the Muslim League at least. A re elected Churchill would certainly have pressed for that at most rather than giving India independence as Attlee did
That reminds me, you've never yet told me up front without diversion whether you would have given India (old sense, etc.) independence if in Attlee's position, and without making up side trails.
If I was a Tory MP or Tory supporter then I would have backed the Tory position at the time, which under Churchill was to keep India within the Empire had the Tories won the 1945 election.
However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
Which he granted because Britain could not afford to keep India against its will and in the teeth of American hostility.
Churchill would have made the same decision in the end. He would just have killed a great many more people before it dawned on him he had no choice.
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
It’s an interesting thought experiment, though. A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.
“Go Canada”, I said.
Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.
UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.
The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
An interesting idea but as they are now independent nations would need all involved to consent
Obvs.
You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.
I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.
Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%
The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come
The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary
I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame
They also have only themselves to blame for getting rid of their most successful election winner since Thatcher, who even today matches Starmer in terms of favourables unlike Sunak and Truss with Mori
Nadine Dorries has doubled down on her comments about breaking the law, telling Cathy Newman on Times Radio: "Come on, Cathy, you've broken the law, I've broken the law, we've all done it, it was a fixed penalty notice."
Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.
Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.
India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
We would have had to spend a vast amount of money to keep India British after 1945 (assuming that was possible).
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Maybe but after the loss of the American colonies it was India that kept us a superpower, even with Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined we would still be no more powerful than Japan economically and still not in the same league as the US and China economically or militarily
It’s an interesting thought experiment, though. A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.
“Go Canada”, I said.
Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.
UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.
The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
Aren't the bigger questions "what prestige does the UK want, and what do we intend to do with it?"
One reading of the last decade or so is that it's about a generation of politicians who pine for greater national prestige, but aren't really (or realistically) able to say what that looks like.
Starting to look a bit grim for Sunak now, unless he can mount some very late comeback from here. Even more difficult now polling closed and result announced in 58 hours.
Maybe if he could come across as a real person not some AI construct it might help. Rish Headroom, what a joke.
I do not understand why his team did not review Sunak's hustings performances with him. Given it was practically the same one each time, there was ample scope to tweak things so that, for instance, he explained missed appointments better, and used the term cost of living rather than just inflation.
At what price/kWh does it become cheaper to buy new clothes than wash your old ones?
Average washing machine is 300W so a 3hr wash is 0.9kWh. I would guess the average wash includes clothes worth £300 new (say 5kg, a kg is a shirt and a pair of jeans, £60 for both?) so you would be looking at £333/kWh? At that price this would be the least of your concerns and the clothes themselves would cost loads more in that scenario too. Short answer, there is probably no price where in equilibrium it would be cheaper to buy new clothes each time.
The problem with UK/Canada is you're trying to merge the most centralised developed democracy with the most de-centralised. The Tories can't cope with Sturgeon in Scotland.
Comments
Maybe if he could come across as a real person not some AI construct it might help. Rish Headroom, what a joke.
Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
Incidentally I think a lot of people in this country know full well who is to blame for the high energy prices, and that it's Putin even if the usual suspects want to blame the Tories for it.
The House of Lords has to submit to the will of the Commons ultimately, the devolved nations only have power in their nation and local government in the local area
Starmer: -12
Johnson: -24
Sunak: -21
Truss: -22
Zahawi: -18
Patel: -32
Source: Ipsos https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/2-3-britons-say-things-great-britain-are-heading-wrong-direction https://twitter.com/IpsosUK/status/1565727406513692672/photo/1
They might be even worse than parliament at thinking that it is obvious our grandchildren will be rich enough to pay our bills as well as theirs. Two trillion and counting. And Mrs Truss sounds as bad.
There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.
We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
They have been used to find a consensus conclusion on matters of controversy, or matters outside day-to-day politics.
Like referendums, or royal commissions, they are advisory.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate#:~:text=US Inflation Rate is at,long term average of 3.26%.
Not sure whether that matches the methodology of CPI or RPI.
What shoddy journalism. They would never get away with posting here.
"Inflation rose 8.5 percent in July compared with the previous year" implies it has gone up by 8.5% from the previous year's inflation number which was 5.4%. Hence the 13.9%.
I assume the actual inflation figure is supposed to be 8.5% which means it has risen 3.1%
Everything else has been noise.
A better course of action would have been just to incorporate New Zealand, Australia, and Canada into the United Kingdom in the late 19th century.
Whoever shapes or sets the terms of reference of any assembly or commission can guide it to the "right" result.
If you want a consensus, put your policy in a manifesto and win an election over it.
Objectively it makes her look nearly as craven as him
I passed it 4th term and was interviewed at Oxford, and offered a place to do chemistry, but chose London and Medical School instead.
France failed in Vietnam and Algeria when it tried, as did Portugal in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. We would have fared no better. The best thing we did with the Empire was to leave it, mostly fairly orderly. The obvious exception being Indian partition.
https://twitter.com/TLDRNewsUK/status/1565721391894188032
Actually I have never received a FPN no.
The Government Legal Department are basically the in-house lawyers for all government departments. They're headed by the Treasury Solicitor (currently Susanna McGibbon, after Jonathan Jones resigned over NI Protocol and Government plans to break the law in a "limited and specific way") and reports to the Attorney General but it's all rather arm's length as they are meant to be able to advise independently.
Generally, if a Government department wants legal advice, it goes to the GLD (who don't in practice sit in one building - they are physically scattered around departments. GLD would potentially instruct private practice solicitors if they lacked someone with appropriate expertise or there was a bandwidth issue (e.g. they got extra bodies for COVID and Brexit) and would instruct a barrister sometimes too.
In theory, a department could decide not to go via the GLD at all, and simply appoint private solicitors directly - but it'd be REALLY odd behaviour and the suspicion would be that it'd be fishy. The Jones resignation indicates the GLD is pretty independent minded and you don't necessarily get the advice you want, so you have to suspect if a Government department bypasses the GLD, they don't want the best legal answer, but instead a clever (but very possibly wrong) argument of the type you can pay for if you prefer palatable over accurate.
In general, solicitors formally instruct barristers like Pannick, so the contractual relationship is arm's length from the ultimate client. So "my" barrister in a case is normally actually my solicitor's barrister being pedantic. That's been relaxed a bit (it used to be that ONLY solicitors could instruct barristers) but that isn't the situation here.
So Pannick is saying he was instructed via Peters & Peters solicitors and NOT via the GLD. However, Peters & Peters were almost certainly instructed and paid for by the Cabinet Office (based on the Government messaging about "Government advice" and so on) rather than Johnson personally.
It's all incredibly dodgy. Why bypass the GLD? And, if it's right that the Cabinet Office did instruct Peters & Peters, giving them authority to appoint Pannick at doubtless astronomical expense, why on earth was that deemed to be Cabinet Office business and worth spaffing taxpayers' money on?
Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/62770895
Jonny Bairstow: England batter ruled out of third Test and T20 World Cup
England batter Jonny Bairstow has been ruled out of the third Test against South Africa and the Twenty20 World Cup after sustaining a possible broken left leg while playing golf on Friday.
The 32-year-old slipped walking to a tee box and will see a specialist to ascertain the extent of the injury.
My impression is that most native officers were by the 1940's, quite pro-British, but at the same time, they had concluded that it was time for independence.
A hodgepodge of a hundred or so people is not an appropriate assembly since it's excluding the views and votes of everybody else.
https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/1565731296797655048/photo/1
If the latter: on what basis could this be considered Government business? What civil servant (if any) agreed to spend public money, and use the Government website, for this purpose? Hope somebody asks the gvt these Qs. There is a very discomfiting blurring of boundaries here.
Once they were given independence by Attlee however partition was inevitable or there would have been civil war between Hindus and Muslims
For one thing we have an Umpires Call type situation here whereby once the HS says the magic words "national security" the Courts have to see clear and obvious error on his part to outlaw his decision. High bar, not met here. So, ok, it was legal.
But there's legal and there's legal. Eg a wealthy person sets up a dubious tax avoidance scheme just a hair's breadth the right side of the law. That's legal. Or alternatively they don't do this, they keep things simple and pay their taxes like anybody else. That's legal too. Both courses of action are legal. Does this mean there's no material difference between them? Does it mean a reasonable person can't assess one as being right and one as less right and arguably wrong?
No it doesn't. Legal and right is better than legal and wrong.
The covid laws were a joke, but the bitter part is those framing did not expect the bulk of the population to follow them quite so severely. I mean why would you? They were clearly nonsensical. The implication that you can only get covid while upright in a pub, but not when sitting.
We were a bunch of saps, for sure, but trying to equate a FPN that would not have been issued if police had intervened in person to more serious breaking of the law is beneath you.
In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.
Just because some Indians served in the ICS and Armed forces doesn't mean they would have sided with Britain against their own people. See France in Vietnam and Algeria, Portugal in Lusophone Africa for how it happens.
A leading light of the Labour Party asked me a year or so ago, how might Britain regain prestige in the world.
“Go Canada”, I said.
Some kind of constitutional federation, perhaps with its parliament in Halifax (or Vancouver, if one wants to extend the idea to Australia and NZ), would be a force to be reckoned with, albeit not at US or China levels.
UK and Canada have a lot in common as North Atlantic powers looking both East, West and indeed - in the age of Trump - South.
The gain for Canada would be an additional measure of autonomy from the United States.
Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.
Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
Members overwhelmingly in favour of Public Sector rail, mail, energy and water.
94% think recent rail strikes are justified.
73% say Labour MPs should be joining picket lines with members of unions affiliated to the party: https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1565720996623032324
At what price/kWh does it become cheaper to buy new clothes than wash your old ones?
However the election was lost and hence India became independent thanks to Attlee
Although there might not be an “America”, but rather a number of States that would be peers of England.
If it hadn't been the population of such an area would not have made it to the roughly 360 million it has today.
Nor is it by any means certain the British would have acted so ruthlessly in annexing Texas and California from Mexico.
The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come
The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary
I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame
The mooted alternative to independence, as you said, was for them to have MPs. In 1776 the UK had 8 million people and the USA just 2.5 million so the UK would have had far more MPs, especially since boundaries weren't all the same size then.
But over time the American population would have inevitably grown, as it did, and the evolution of population changes and evolution of democracy would have ultimately meant the British Empire would have transitioned to an American one. Just as the Roman Empire shifted its centre of gravity to the East from Rome.
Churchill would have made the same decision in the end. He would just have killed a great many more people before it dawned on him he had no choice.
You’d start modestly, with a single market, enhanced defence collaboration and joint procurement, a common energy and climate change policy, and ministerial exchanges.
I am thinking mostly of UK/Canada.
Geography militates against bringing Australia and NZ on board.
One reading of the last decade or so is that it's about a generation of politicians who pine for greater national prestige, but aren't really (or realistically) able to say what that looks like.
At that price this would be the least of your concerns and the clothes themselves would cost loads more in that scenario too. Short answer, there is probably no price where in equilibrium it would be cheaper to buy new clothes each time.
The Tories can't cope with Sturgeon in Scotland.