Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Give him his due, not even Boris tried that one.
As far as we know.
Why do you think they needed separate planes?
Because Boris would knock her out, switch clothes, and present himself to the Queen in a wig.
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.'
I see. The thing is, quite aside from transsexuals, it would be very useful to have such a word. As you say, it used to be "he". But that was clearly always sub-optimal, that word doing a perfectly good job elsewhere. The problem is that any such words now carry connotations of 'look at me and how modern my sensibilities are'.
You're just wrong. It is still normal English.
Thought experiment: you are in a car, with a passenger. In front of you is a single occupant car remaining stationary after thelights have gone green. If you can tell their gender you say What is he/she just sitting there for? If you can't, I bet you say, What are they just sitting there for?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
I know Truss had an affair but do you have a link re your allegations re Kwarteng
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
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?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
During the Cold War, the more demented Hammer&Sickle shaggers like to claim that the Soviet constitution guaranteed far more rights than most Western countries.
And indeed it did. Lots of nice words. Enforcement of the words was up to the judges of course…..
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
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.'
I see. The thing is, quite aside from transsexuals, it would be very useful to have such a word. As you say, it used to be "he". But that was clearly always sub-optimal, that word doing a perfectly good job elsewhere. The problem is that any such words now carry connotations of 'look at me and how modern my sensibilities are'.
You're just wrong. It is still normal English.
Thought experiment: you are in a car, with a passenger. In front of you is a single occupant car remaining stationary after thelights have gone green. If you can tell their gender you say What is he/she just sitting there for? If you can't, I bet you say, What are they just sitting there for?
Following this debate my overwhelming impression is the strict 'rule' about not doing that is one of those made up rules that is not actually that important for general understanding.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
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"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well yes. That's very much my main problem with it. I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Each and every one of which is a snobbish non-distinction dreamed up by tedious 19th century Oxford classics dons. tell us how you can't be doing with split infinitives.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
A day of political theatre but all well choreographed and the denouement well trailed. The new senior Cabinet appointments are indeed no surprise and unfortunately the Prime Minister has forgotten one of the most important adages of political life - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
As a point for some on here - the ethnicity and gender of any Cabinet Minister (or indeed anyone) is entirely and totally irrelevant. It doesn't make them beyond criticism or open to unreasonable criticism - it makes them open to reasonable scrutiny and account.
Consider the number of allies Margaret Thatcher had in the 1975 Shadow Cabinet or the extent to which John Major kept most of the Thatcher team after the 1990 leadership election.
Concensus (however you spell it) isn't a bad thing - collective responsibility doesn't just mean single-minded obeisance to the Prime Minister. Dissent can often mean different thinking and again that shouldn't and isn't a bad thing.
Truss' address to the nation was, as these always are, long on generalities and platitudes and short on specifics but obviously the next 48 hours will be informative.
The well-trailed "Energy Freeze" confuses old simple-minded @stodge a wee bit. If I'm not going to pay the additional costs for my energy, where is my incentive to use less? Putting that to one side, if we assume the Government is going to pay out and do so from more borrowing, that doesn't sound like good news for the public finances.
I read the CEO of Scottish Power claiming the Government's plans would cost a "conservative" £100 billion so we can probably double that especially if it is required well into 2023 if not beyond. We are already set to pay £100 billion in debt interest payments next year before this additional borrowing.
I thought originally the "loan" (for that's what it is) would be repaid via no reduction in bills IF the price of gas falls but presumably there's also the option of clearing it via rises in general taxation though the most likely option i the classic kicking the can down the road solution and ensuring the next Government has a financial anchor dragging it along.
I now wonder the extent to which spending cuts will now be inflicted on local and central Government. One advantage the Conservatives have is that 2019 was such a bad year for them in the local election round, they couldn't do much worse in 2023 - or could they?
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"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well yes. That's very much my main problem with it. I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Each and every one of which is a snobbish non-distinction dreamed up by tedious 19th century Oxford classics dons. tell us how you can't be doing with split infinitives.
Snobbish non-distinctions are what made our country great, and will do so again. Get with the programme.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
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.'
I see. The thing is, quite aside from transsexuals, it would be very useful to have such a word. As you say, it used to be "he". But that was clearly always sub-optimal, that word doing a perfectly good job elsewhere. The problem is that any such words now carry connotations of 'look at me and how modern my sensibilities are'.
You're just wrong. It is still normal English.
Thought experiment: you are in a car, with a passenger. In front of you is a single occupant car remaining stationary after thelights have gone green. If you can tell their gender you say What is he/she just sitting there for? If you can't, I bet you say, What are they just sitting there for?
I would say 'what is that person just sitting there for?' Or on the grounds that that person hadn't heard me and wouldn't take offence, I would make a wild guess. Or I would just use "he" in the same way that I describe all cats as "he" unless I know otherwise - again, knowing that that person couldn't take offence.
I would very much like a gender neutral politically neutral third person singular word. But we don't have one at present and I'm not going to start using the English language in an ugly manner for the lack of one.
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Which is entirely fair. The Rwanda policy is highly contentious, and I can understand the many objections. I believe, however, we are at a stage when we need pretty radical solutions, because this will only get worse
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
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"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well yes. That's very much my main problem with it. I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Each and every one of which is a snobbish non-distinction dreamed up by tedious 19th century Oxford classics dons. tell us how you can't be doing with split infinitives.
You're certainly speaking my language.
I've said it before, but while there are occasions when less and fewer are not interchangable (I am fewer education than Ydoethur for example), the false rigidity people apply to it is just dumb, as is the supposed improperness of plenty of rules.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
I like to listen to the political news through nonpartisan, nonpolitical sources like the hourly news bulletin on Magic Radio to hear how it sounds to people who don't read PB. It wasn't great for Truss to be honest - they played that soundbite about putting spades in the ground to lower utility bills, which is literally just random words assembled into a sentence. I am already tired of her voice, too. Obviously I am not an unbiased source on this matter, but I honestly think she is going to be shit. If Labour don't win the next election they should probably just pack up and go home.
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?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
A non answer, because even as a Russian dissident today I would prefer the country to be party to the convention.
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.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
It's a very fair point. The protection is being a member of the ECHR, but it only exists as a protection for as long as Parliament allows it. I guess that all it represents is an extra hoop for a government that sought to curtail human rights to jump through before it could do so. That's not great - but it's better than nothing.
The government is incandescent with rage about those hoops - that shows they have an effect.
OR the hoops are now ridiculous foreign obstacles that prevent the UK government of the day enacting the will of the people
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
My problem with the Rwanda policy is not whether it is lawful or not, I think it is the wrong approach regardless of whether it is lawful. I am happy to concede that things may be lawful even if I think they are shitty. If the UK parliament wants to pursue that policy in non-compliance with the ECHR, if indeed it is, then I would object to the policy regardless, I just wouldn't mention the legality.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Which is entirely fair. The Rwanda policy is highly contentious, and I can understand the many objections. I believe, however, we are at a stage when we need pretty radical solutions, because this will only get worse
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
Precisely! The policy was, quite rightly, challenged in the British courts beforehand.
As it's already been established that the ECHR doesn't work if British courts are nobbled, as Russia is an apt example of, the ECHR serves no purpose other than to infantilise politics.
Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all Parliamentary Common Law nations with overall good human rights.
January 2022 Putin's Russia, in the ECHR and the Council of Europe was not.
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"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well yes. That's very much my main problem with it. I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Each and every one of which is a snobbish non-distinction dreamed up by tedious 19th century Oxford classics dons. tell us how you can't be doing with split infinitives.
That may be so, but can you really say something like 'I want less peas' without wincing?
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 .
No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
Big England = UK energy. Presumably your only objection to Bulgarian judges telling the Jocks, Taffs and Paddies what to do is that it’s entirely England’s job.
I think a UK judge sits on any case involving the UK. As with any signatory.
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"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well yes. That's very much my main problem with it. I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Each and every one of which is a snobbish non-distinction dreamed up by tedious 19th century Oxford classics dons. tell us how you can't be doing with split infinitives.
That may be so, but can you really say something like 'I want less peas' without wincing?
Remember "She's just dressing bonkers right to win the party election. As soon as that's over, she'll tack to the centre-right to win with the public" thing?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
I am concerned about the allegations and have asked for a link as I know Truss had affair but that was with Mark Field
Not sure OGH would be impressed
An allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong,
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
I am not a lawyer but as I read the comment allegation was not in the sentence
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?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
A non answer, because even as a Russian dissident today I would prefer the country to be party to the convention.
As a Russian dissident I would think the ECHR was an absolute failure. It is the League of Nations of Human Rights.
I like to listen to the political news through nonpartisan, nonpolitical sources like the hourly news bulletin on Magic Radio to hear how it sounds to people who don't read PB. It wasn't great for Truss to be honest - they played that soundbite about putting spades in the ground to lower utility bills, which is literally just random words assembled into a sentence. I am already tired of her voice, too. Obviously I am not an unbiased source on this matter, but I honestly think she is going to be shit. If Labour don't win the next election they should probably just pack up and go home.
Be of good cheer, Labour will in in 2024. My side will be the depressed people
Which, in a way, is only fair. The pendulum must swing, and much as I abhor Wokeness etc the Tories look desperately tired
My big worry is that Truss is going to enact some quite radically conservative policies - some of them much needed - at exactly the wrong time: with only two years to make them work, and in the teeth of a terrible downturn. So they won’t work and voters will recoil, and we will get pathetic Woke socialist declinism for a decade and a half
Remember "She's just dressing bonkers right to win the party election. As soon as that's over, she'll tack to the centre-right to win with the public" thing?
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?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
And if we are still in the echr and the governement is ruled against after doing any of these and says "fuck off we were elected to run the country" the echr is going to do what exactly?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
Ruddy hell!
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
Comments
Well phooey - my opinion of Sueevil today is Patel minus a brain. I’m entitled to it because these political careers didn’t just begin today you know.
Here’s my halo 😇
Probably the crappest FS since Johnson.
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567223375205916681?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
Thought experiment: you are in a car, with a passenger. In front of you is a single occupant car remaining stationary after thelights have gone green. If you can tell their gender you say What is he/she just sitting there for? If you can't, I bet you say, What are they just sitting there for?
And indeed it did. Lots of nice words. Enforcement of the words was up to the judges of course…..
Allegedly.
HMG’s Rwanda policy has been passed as lawful by all relevant British courts. It was the ECHR which stopped it
Now you may hate the Rwanda policy but it is an attempt to solve a problem that the British people want solved, and with reason. It might not work but it is surely worth trying. If independent British judges say it does not infringe human rights then that’s good enough for me
Get on with it
Chocolate salami does not taste much of chocolate, more like a cheap fridge cake. But the Portuguese are in love with it.
I have no opinion of him one way or another.
Same thing over the prorogation case, albeit that did not touch on ECHR issues - it was the wrong thing to do even if the court had ruled it was acceptable (frankly I was not entirely persuaded by the argument it was not legal).
Are we sure about this? Are OGH's legal team sure about this?
not to mention Rishi Sunak's heated swimming pool?
A day of political theatre but all well choreographed and the denouement well trailed. The new senior Cabinet appointments are indeed no surprise and unfortunately the Prime Minister has forgotten one of the most important adages of political life - keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
As a point for some on here - the ethnicity and gender of any Cabinet Minister (or indeed anyone) is entirely and totally irrelevant. It doesn't make them beyond criticism or open to unreasonable criticism - it makes them open to reasonable scrutiny and account.
Consider the number of allies Margaret Thatcher had in the 1975 Shadow Cabinet or the extent to which John Major kept most of the Thatcher team after the 1990 leadership election.
Concensus (however you spell it) isn't a bad thing - collective responsibility doesn't just mean single-minded obeisance to the Prime Minister. Dissent can often mean different thinking and again that shouldn't and isn't a bad thing.
Truss' address to the nation was, as these always are, long on generalities and platitudes and short on specifics but obviously the next 48 hours will be informative.
The well-trailed "Energy Freeze" confuses old simple-minded @stodge a wee bit. If I'm not going to pay the additional costs for my energy, where is my incentive to use less? Putting that to one side, if we assume the Government is going to pay out and do so from more borrowing, that doesn't sound like good news for the public finances.
I read the CEO of Scottish Power claiming the Government's plans would cost a "conservative" £100 billion so we can probably double that especially if it is required well into 2023 if not beyond. We are already set to pay £100 billion in debt interest payments next year before this additional borrowing.
I thought originally the "loan" (for that's what it is) would be repaid via no reduction in bills IF the price of gas falls but presumably there's also the option of clearing it via rises in general taxation though the most likely option i the classic kicking the can down the road solution and ensuring the next Government has a financial anchor dragging it along.
I now wonder the extent to which spending cuts will now be inflicted on local and central Government. One advantage the Conservatives have is that 2019 was such a bad year for them in the local election round, they couldn't do much worse in 2023 - or could they?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11184387/AI-artist-imagine-whats-outside-frame-famous-paintings-including-Girl-Pearl-Earring.html
It was horrid.
Fortunately for me, she overlooked this epic fail.
Not sure OGH would be impressed
Or on the grounds that that person hadn't heard me and wouldn't take offence, I would make a wild guess.
Or I would just use "he" in the same way that I describe all cats as "he" unless I know otherwise - again, knowing that that person couldn't take offence.
I would very much like a gender neutral politically neutral third person singular word. But we don't have one at present and I'm not going to start using the English language in an ugly manner for the lack of one.
I’d have Johnson at bottom though, with Raab not far behind. Cleverly - on paper - is worse than Raab. Truss was just about OK.
But these are proper debates we need to have in a democratic country. What we don’t need is some ridiculous foreign court saying No a democratic British government can’t do something that the British people want, even though the British courts have said it is permissible. Enough
I've said it before, but while there are occasions when less and fewer are not interchangable (I am fewer education than Ydoethur for example), the false rigidity people apply to it is just dumb, as is the supposed improperness of plenty of rules.
Her real first name is Mary.
It is not against the law to have sex. This can't possibly be actionable.
Whether it is true or not is another matter.
So far every Cabinet member appointed endorsed Truss from the first round I think except Braverman who endorsed her when knocked out
As it's already been established that the ECHR doesn't work if British courts are nobbled, as Russia is an apt example of, the ECHR serves no purpose other than to infantilise politics.
Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all Parliamentary Common Law nations with overall good human rights.
January 2022 Putin's Russia, in the ECHR and the Council of Europe was not.
As with any signatory.
What we saw is what we're going to get.
Which, in a way, is only fair. The pendulum must swing, and much as I abhor Wokeness etc the Tories look desperately tired
My big worry is that Truss is going to enact some quite radically conservative policies - some of them much needed - at exactly the wrong time: with only two years to make them work, and in the teeth of a terrible downturn. So they won’t work and voters will recoil, and we will get pathetic Woke socialist declinism for a decade and a half
MEH
Fecking bonkers.
Kwarteng had a fling with Amber Rudd, NOT Truss.
Truss had her fling with Mark Field MP.
Sources:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amber-gives-green-light-to-suitors-hhn02r537
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/nov/05/elizabeth-truss-deselection-affair
Chloe Smith goes in.
Hope she gets DWP.
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567228869475704832?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww