Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Punters give her a 41% chance of being PM after next election – politicalbetting.com

13468914

Comments

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    HYUFD said:
    Oh well it was a good 7 hours. Bolton is a fucking idiot
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,171
    HYUFD said:
    Needs for what though? Comedy?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    biggles said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.

    I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
    Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.

    And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,356

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    So if we leave the ECHR, we will be in good, democratic company.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,853
    HYUFD said:

    Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary George Eustice the next of the Rishi backers to be axed by Liz

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1567206667439202310?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww

    Hurrah
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    edited September 2022
    Genuine question, does Deputy PM formally make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    biggles said:

    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved

    How then do you use it as a foreign policy tool?
    I don’t care about using it as a foreign policy tool. That’s not what human rights are for

    This is about the British people having as much sovereignty as the Australian or American people, who certainly would not submit in fundamental ways to a foreign court in a foreign country (and yes I know we kicked the whole thing off)
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
    No, we have democracy for recourse.

    Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    No it isn't. been in constant use as a singular since at the latest 1375.
    Really? Where? All documents I have seen from that period use 'he' as a shorthand for a single person of unknown gender.
    https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/

    Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

    But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’
    But that sentence isn't a singular. If it says 'each man' that means there's more than one.

    And your own link notes the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't agree.
    Americanese is not English. Though related, admittedly, in the manner of an elephant and a manatee.
    Tusk, tusk.

    There is a serious point, in that the CMS while focused on American English is actually generally used as a standard grammar guide in a way the OED is for spelling.

    So if they agree with me, regardless of what Ishmael thinks I'm happy I'm right.
    you are saying "each man" is plural?

    Respect. A positively HYUFDian claim.
    No, I'm saying if they refer to 'each man' it means there was more than one of them!

    You wouldn't use the word 'each' instead of 'the' for just one, would you?
    No, but that doesn't prevent it from being singular. Each man had a sword = All the men had swords. That doesn't make "Each man had swords" acceptable.

    "A journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources"; are you seriously saying that is not good English?
    Well, yes. Because apart from anything else it should be a general comment in the plural, so 'journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources.'
    OK: this allegation was made by a journalist, who when asked refused to reveal their source.
    ... reveal the sources used.

    Would do, and you avoid the potential singular/plural clash, especially if you have just been talking about a multiple entity.

    "PB posters were accused of rabidly attacking innocent tractor enthusiasts. The journalist refused to reveal the sources used."
    I am not saying there's not ways round it, if you accept the premise that ways round need to be found, just as if you arbitrarily declared that "is going to" wasn't English I can always substitute "will." Doesn't make "is going to" bad English.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    kle4 said:

    biggles said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.

    I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
    Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.

    And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
    I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited September 2022

    Is Rees-Mogg really going to BEIS? Really?

    What sick parody is this?

    Awful isn't it. It's like they're laughing at us.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM formally make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    Well the last two have been a bit shit.

    Otherwise, no.

    In fact technically the rankings in terms of order of precedence start with the Lord Chancellor, then the PM, then the Lord President.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    edited September 2022

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM formally make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    Yes doing it this way. Order of seniority, when written down, is order of appointment in our system.

    Edit - but there’s a difference between de jour and de facto seniority. Under that definition for example, a newly appointed Chancellor is most junior. They are no. So her de facto seniority vs, say, the Chancellor is all about the PM saying so.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    HYUFD said:

    Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary George Eustice the next of the Rishi backers to be axed by Liz

    https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1567206667439202310?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww

    Somewhere in pet heaven Geronimo is laughing at the sacking of George Useless
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992

    I think I may spend some of winnings on these shoes, do you think Liz Truss would approve?


    I clearly have no taste and I am not sure about Liz, but I would caution against those shoes as I would suggest; a) you might be wise to keep the cash to help you children and their children pay down the £190b energy bail out debt and; b) they remind me of something Showaddywaddy might have worn during the last killer recession.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Fair enough. Teachers should treat their pupils with respect and vice-versa.

    EDIT: Misread it, jailed!? Fired is what I misread it as, fired is appropriate, jailed is not.

    EDIT2: No, he was jailed for contempt of court, not for pronoun use. Contempt of court is of course jailable, should have read article first.
    He was fired.
    He was jailed for ignoring a banning order not to go near the school.
    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he would breach such an order. There always seemed to me to be something vaguely sad and disturbing about ex-colleagues who tried to hang round the place.

    And of course, it's landed him in prison anyway, which makes it a doubly stupid idea.
    Its disturbing in any workplace.

    Its doubly disturbing surely in schools to have unauthorised adults hanging around the place.
    I think he was after martyrdom.

    Enoch Burke is a great name.

    Anglican, not surprisingly.
    He will be a hero to the anti Woke right though, Leon will have a poster of him on his wall soon enough
    Actually no. From my reading the guy appears to be a religiose twerp
    If you don't object to being required to refer to someone as 'they' in a classroom and jailed for doing so, then you are not really anti Woke at all. I am afraid Leon you are just another elitist London metropolitan liberal after all.

    The Mail comments on this are appalled. I am not too bothered with referring to someone as 'they' if they wish but I certainly would not jail someone who refused to, especially if they took a traditional and religious view of sexuality

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11184043/Teacher-refused-use-students-gender-neutral-pronouns-JAILED-Ireland.html#comments
    He was jailed for contempt of court


    I despise Wokeness but a teacher should afford his pupils the basic respect of calling them “they” if that is how they see themselves. The respect must go both ways however
    Since you never refer to anyone to their face, I don't see how the issue arose.
    That's not actually difficult.

    Child answers a question.

    Teacher: 'That was a good answer, X. Now, how can we improve on what s/he said?'
    English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:

    Isn't the third person singular "it"/"its"?
    It, he, she, one or they. Context dependent.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    edited September 2022
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
    No, we have democracy for recourse.

    Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.

    Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_ranking

    In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
  • ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:
    Do I hear the sound of barrels being scraped?
    Having someone whose name sounds like Doctor Cough-y as Health Sec is going to be a satirist's dream.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    HYUFD said:
    Jobs for the boyfriends?
  • HYUFD said:
    Needs for what though? Comedy?
    Favourable comparator.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.

    It is in countries that have the rule of law.

  • ydoethur said:

    Is Rees-Mogg really going to BEIS? Really?

    What sick parody is this?

    Apparently he's been such a knob in his previous roles that there's no junior minister willing to work with him either. So he's got to be his own minister of state too.
    Full marks for efficiency.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
    No, we have democracy for recourse.

    Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.

    Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.

    Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,306
    edited September 2022

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
    If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
  • Sebastian Payne
    @SebastianEPayne
    ·
    3m
    Chancellor
    @KwasiKwarteng
    is the new chancellor
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    Well that's my position exactly.
    And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too.
    I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person.
    Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    Is Rees-Mogg really going to BEIS? Really?

    What sick parody is this?

    Truss has not appointed some duffers, but seems to have saved it up to have one big duffer in place. Come on Liz, not even Boris entrusted that buffoon with real responsibility, there's no need to do this.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.

    It is in countries that have the rule of law.

    No, the fact the countries have the rule of law is the guarantor.

    Your logic is like religious people saying I believe in the Bible because its the word of God and I believe in God because of the Bible.

    The ECHR/Council of Europe should have expelled Russia decades ago. They didn't. Guarantor of nothing.
  • kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved

    But the government presumably want to remove certain bits, or else they'd not be so mad. So which bits?
    Not necessarily. It might just be Britain doesn't want foreigners telling us what to do.

    The idea of a consortium including Britain at its proper size really upsets some people.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited September 2022
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Yep. There's nothing undemocratic about that.
  • Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant

    Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig

    Shapps is the guy who wants everyone to have bike numberplates even if they're just cycling down a country lane for 5 minutes.
    To be honest I think ebikes are as fast as mopeds and should have plates the same. Deliveroo riders on them are maniacs. Completely manual bikes are OK.
    ebikes are not just for Deliveroo anymore, and they hunt in packs.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    Well that's my position exactly.
    And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too.
    I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person.
    Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
    It's a running together of the Welsh pronouns 'fe' (he) and 'hi' (pronounced he and meaning, amusingly, she).

    It works better than combining the English ones, or at least I think it does.

    And by adding an r or m you could easily replace 'his/hers' and 'him/her.'
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
    If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
    If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
    No, we have democracy for recourse.

    Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.

    Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.

    Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.

    Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.

    Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    I assume she is quietly confident, as she was the Cabinet Minister I would always forget existed.
  • English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:

    Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    edited September 2022
    If Liz did an about-turn on Rees-Mogg I would sit up and pay attention.

    No serious Cabinet includes him, least of all that critical portfolio.
  • kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
    If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
    If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
    It infantilises domestic politics.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
  • kle4 said:

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_ranking

    In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
    I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.

    So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).

    Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
    If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
    If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
    It infantilises domestic politics.
    Only if you have an enormous persecution complex.
  • What problem is leaving the ECHR designed to fix?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732
    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    Perfect for Health Secretary if Sir Les Patterson is not available.


  • Penny Mordaunt in no 10
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Incorporate the ECHR into British law, and have it enforced by British judges, who are ultimately answerable to the British people. Then leave the ECHR

    Problem solved

    But the government presumably want to remove certain bits, or else they'd not be so mad. So which bits?
    Not necessarily. It might just be Britain doesn't want foreigners telling us what to do.

    The idea of a consortium including Britain at its proper size really upsets some people.
    "foreigners." Is that satirical?
  • Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
    But the ECtHR does nothing to ensure courts are independent. It has failed on its own terms.

    Accountability does.
  • Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
    In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    HYUFD said:
    Why didn't she just write a note in front of Downing Street three weeks ago?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    The idea that Truss has madly forsaken some huge reserve of Thatcherian talent in ignoring Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak is piquant

    Sunak is the guy who said “I don’t have any working class friends” and thought it was fine for his billionaire wife to avoid UK tax; Grant Shapps is Grant Shapps, but in a wig

    Shapps is the guy who wants everyone to have bike numberplates even if they're just cycling down a country lane for 5 minutes.
    To be honest I think ebikes are as fast as mopeds and should have plates the same. Deliveroo riders on them are maniacs. Completely manual bikes are OK.
    ebikes are not just for Deliveroo anymore, and they hunt in packs.
    Yes, so licence plates for them would be good. Our local drug dealers seem to favour them.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,918
    HYUFD said:
    Really? He’s a bit rubbish isn’t he?
  • kle4 said:

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_ranking

    In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
    I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.

    So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).

    Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
    It’s a bugger’s muddle.
    There should be a clear order of a precedence in the event of the PM’s indisposal.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Penny Mordaunt in no 10

    Really? I thought that was Truss?
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
    No, we have democracy for recourse.

    Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.

    Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.

    Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.

    Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.

    Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.

    What evidence do you have for that claim?
  • JACK_W said:

    Penny Mordaunt in no 10

    Blimey ... Truss didn't last long .. :smile:
    Transport?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,656
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    I assume she is quietly confident, as she was the Cabinet Minister I would always forget existed.
    Yes she has ruined my pub quiz scores too.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,901

    If Liz did an about-turn on Rees-Mogg I would sit up and pay attention.

    No serious Cabinet includes him, least of all that critical portfolio.

    If Liz filled Rees-Mogg to the brim with bees, I would sit up and pay attention.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    JACK_W said:

    Penny Mordaunt in no 10

    Blimey ... Truss didn't last long .. :smile:
    Transport?
    Taxi for Truss!
  • Chancellors who attended Cambridge are the best.

    I'm feeling optimistic about Liz now.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,230

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM formally make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM formally make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    A good and loyal mate.
    But too dim to be left in charge of owt.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    If Liz did an about-turn on Rees-Mogg I would sit up and pay attention.

    No serious Cabinet includes him, least of all that critical portfolio.

    If Liz filled Rees-Mogg to the brim with bees, I would sit up and pay attention.
    A wax figure would do a better job!
  • Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
    In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?

    Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:
    Really? He’s a bit rubbish isn’t he?
    He was a big Truss supporter though for the leadership, as was Kwarteng, as was Coffey. Truss giving her loyalists the big jobs so far
  • kle4 said:

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_ranking

    In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
    I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.

    So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).

    Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
    It’s a bugger’s muddle.
    There should be a clear order of a precedence in the event of the PM’s indisposal.
    There is - but it's set by the PM rather than the same for every PM.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    Perfect for Health Secretary if Sir Les Patterson is not available.


    That's just trolling
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    edited September 2022

    kle4 said:

    Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.

    I was never quite sure.

    According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerial_ranking

    In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
    I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.

    So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).

    Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
    Can't really understand the need for ranking at all. In the event of a mass event decapitating government under our system we're not going to go designated survivor and appoint the 17th person in the ranking or something.

    Amusingly, the wikipedia list from July shows Rees-Mogg was at the very bottom of the list of Cabinet Ministers in the rankings, below even the minister without portfolio - that, Liz, rather shows the non-importance of the job he was given as a junior minister granted Cabinet status despite not being a secretary of state.

    Only non-Cabinet ministers were below him, so don't really count. He was literally the least important member of the Cabinet, officially. That must have bruised his ego.
  • At least we can rejoice that Johnson has finally gone. No-one has diminished the office of PM more than he has.
  • A cabinet of true heavyweights, finally.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,732

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
    In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
    Which rights in it are the ones you object to?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    Perfect for Health Secretary if Sir Les Patterson is not available.


    She looks a fun lass I must say. Lord W's type I bet :D
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022

    At least we can rejoice that Johnson has finally gone. No-one has diminished the office of PM more than he has.

    No-one so far...
  • Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
    In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?

    Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.

    They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.

    How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484

    Foxy said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
    Name one.

    And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.

    Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.

    Russia was until February 2022.

    And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.

    So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
    It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
    In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
    I think for Remainers it is a last shred of European rule over the UK that they are desperate to cling onto. Which is probably reason enough to get rid of it. But more importantly, all the arguments in favour of it seem to melt away when analysed, like snow in spring sun
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,386
    edited September 2022
    As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.

    Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.

    Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,507
    biggles said:

    kle4 said:

    biggles said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
    I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.

    I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
    Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.

    And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
    I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
    What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks.
    Pretty simple really.
  • HYUFD said:
    OK. I was wrong about that one, and lucky I could not bet against Cleverly as FS.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    kle4 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    I assume she is quietly confident, as she was the Cabinet Minister I would always forget existed.
    Competent, damnit.
  • Fourth: Suella Braverman is Home Secretary, promoted from Attorney General

    Superb appointment
  • ...

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Coffrey, I just don’t get the appeal. Can someone explain it? Kwateng I get.

    Perfect for Health Secretary if Sir Les Patterson is not available.


    Winner of the 1998 Stoke Newington Ken Clarke lookalikey awards.
    Lost a couple of points for the boobs - Kens are bigger.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:

    Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?

    I trust these things to Microsoft Word, its easier.
  • nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico679 said:

    Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .

    It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
    Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
    This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
    So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
    Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."

    I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
    It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
    It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
    Why?
    I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
    No, we have democracy for recourse.

    Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.

    Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.

    Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.

    Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.

    Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.

    What evidence do you have for that claim?

    What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,568
    Sue-Ellen! :smiley:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,992
    edited September 2022

    Penny Mordaunt in no 10

    So the last six weeks were just a bad dream. PM is PM!
  • What problem is leaving the ECHR designed to fix?

    Human rights.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,147
    edited September 2022

    As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.

    Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.

    First time that likely not a single white male holds the PM post or any of the 3 great offices of state.

    However while I am all for diversity we must not forget that white males tend to be more Conservative than average so not sure not even having one at the top is a great move, Farage will note and Labour of course is led by a white male still
  • It seems like Truss is making appointments like she overwhelmingly won the MPs and achieved a crushing victory in the members vote.

    That's the same mistake Theresa May made.
  • I mean I knew it was coming, but in what world is “Suella Braverman promoted to Home Secretary” a sane world?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cookie said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/06/teacher-jailed-row-use-pronouns-transgender-pupil/

    A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.

    Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
    Well that's my position exactly.
    And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too.
    I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person.
    Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
    Before the Truss Sunak result -

    "Whoever becomes PM will have a massive in-tray. So let's hope they have a big enough table to put it on."

    What's wrong with that?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.

    Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.

    Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?

    They never were going to. They stood for the many, not the few.
  • As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.

    Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.

    Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?

    Corbyn is a fucking idiot.

    It is clearly good to have more ethnic minorities and women in Government, the Tories have done a good job on that, as have Labour. One of Corbyn's stupid points was arguing over this kind of thing.
This discussion has been closed.