Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Under the blazing sun, #Hongkongers are waiting long queue (current waiting time is 4 hours long) to sign the book of condolence and lay flowers for Her late Majesty #QueenElizabeth II at the British Consulate-General(@UKinHongKong) in #HongKong
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.
'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.
The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.
Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.
And I believe it will matter.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.
For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.
I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.
Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
That is undoubtedly true.
There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.
Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.
While I appreciate that PB Tory is a generic term I am not in fact a PB Tory and therefore am even more well placed than usual (which is pretty well placed) to deliver a devastating, impartial and coruscatingly accurate take on things.
Edit: and that take was that I think it will help her while SKS might well be a deadweight around Lab's neck.
Come, come sir, you fit my stereotype perfectly.
You, I suspect are not a Johnsonian, but la Truss? SOLD! To the gentleman in the top hat!
I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace. He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order. Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.
If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.
The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.
Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.
Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.
Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
Should and reality are not bedfellows here
They really are.
If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.
If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok
Yes.
The right to be Piers Corbyn should not be infringed.
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.
'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.
The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.
Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.
And I believe it will matter.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.
For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.
I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.
Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
That is undoubtedly true.
There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.
Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.
While I appreciate that PB Tory is a generic term I am not in fact a PB Tory and therefore am even more well placed than usual (which is pretty well placed) to deliver a devastating, impartial and coruscatingly accurate take on things.
Edit: and that take was that I think it will help her while SKS might well be a deadweight around Lab's neck.
Come, come sir, you fit my stereotype perfectly.
You, I suspect are not a Johnsonian, but la Truss? SOLD! To the gentleman in the top hat!
I am very relieved that Johnson has gone, and have been told by those who know that Truss will be a disaster.
So I am holding fire for the moment.
Hence my acute and insightful reading of the whole thing.
I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace. He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order. Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.
If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.
The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.
Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.
Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.
Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
Should and reality are not bedfellows here
They really are.
If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.
If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok
Yes.
The right to be Piers Corbyn should not be infringed.
@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.
This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.
Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.
I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+
There is tentative evidence in the last 2 polls of a bounce and thus a chance of the elusive lead, but given the muffling effects of the current events its hard to tell. Worth noting that despite many wanting 'more', 80% and 90% in the 2 polls conducted on it support the 2 year freeze. Not that they will all become Trusstifarians but we are talking big numbers (or whatever her nickname is ) Imo 70% is way way wayyyyyyy too high. It suggests 100 labour gains is almost nailed on. By elections parliamentary and local do not suggest this is certain at all. For me its 50/50 that Labour get to 280 seats, maybe 10% chance of 320 plus at this juncture
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view
Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.
I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.
Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.
Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places
That's not quite true: in '97 the LDs got 16.8%, in 2019 it was 11.6%. I wouldn't be surprised if the libdems bisected the two vote shares and got 14% in 2024.
A possible explanation for the Swedish election result.
"Of 22 European countries analysed, only Sweden had recorded a significant rise in deaths since 2000" Sweden’s gun violence rate has soared due to gangs, report says"
For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view
Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.
I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.
Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.
Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places
That's not quite true: in '97 the LDs got 16.8%, in 2019 it was 11.6%. I wouldn't be surprised if the libdems bisected the two vote shares and got 14% in 2024.
Thats not becoming more efficient though. Thats getting more votes. The point was they gained big in 97 on lower %
It seems something big is brewing over the border.
More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.
Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!
Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win. Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
"The possibility of instability in Russia, a nuclear power, terrifies many. But it may now be unavoidable. And if that’s what is coming, we should anticipate it, plan for it, think about the possibilities as well as the dangers. “We have learned not to be scared,” Reznikov told his Kyiv audience on Saturday. “Now we ask the rest of you not to be scared too.” "
This is the conclusion of the whole article. Not that insightful, to be honest. It is what I have been saying for the last few weeks, we need to be careful of the idea of 'beating back Russia', for exactly this reason. If Russia is 'beaten back' to the point where the regime fails, then it may not ultimately work to our strategic advantage. Because what on earth happens next? Where does the friendly western regime come from? What if it is a psychopathic hardliner who makes Putin look like Nick Clegg? Or what if you end up with dozens of failed statelets in chinese debt traps? I don't know the answer, but it is clear to me that this is an area where our long term interest and that of Ukraine differs significantly. It seems like people have whipped themselves up in to an absolute frenzy over this war and are just seeing it as a David and Goliath style playground scrap, blinded by morality and unable to see the big picture. This is to such a degree that they get to a viewpoint like that expressed by Applebaum above ... "we must embrace chaos and not be scared, because we are on the right side of history" Er... really?
I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace. He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order. Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.
If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.
The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.
Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.
Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.
Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
Should and reality are not bedfellows here
They really are.
If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.
If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok
Yes.
The right to be Piers Corbyn should not be infringed.
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
What % of the vote does Labour/Tory need to win a majority? It should be possible to build a model that predicts this reasonably accurately I would think.
The latest polling result means Labour are up 10 points and the Tories are down 8 points vs. 2019 result.
I think that's roughly equivalent to 1997 election result -> when Lab went up by 9 points and Tories down by 11 points.
The SNP are definitely a complicating factor... but it does look to me like we should expect a pretty big change in seats based on current polls.
Lab majority would be much less surprising than (and, what, half the swing of) May's auto demolition of 2017. If anyone thinks Truss is incapable of outdoing May in the fuck up department I can only assume they are talking about a different Truss. I am on lab maj at I think 5/1, and happy about it.
I don’t understand what he is complaining about? The Paddington bears being included with the flowers?
I think it refers to a gormless royal commentator/expert (of which there appears to be thousands out in the wild) opining that the late queen did a marvellous job acting in the Paddington sketch because 'there wasn't a real Paddington bear there you know'.
Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.
Another gut- wrencher for Johnson.
Johnson single-handedly defeats the Bear only for Truss to take the spoils.
"Sick as a parrot" doesn't come close to how he must be feeling today. Thoughts and prayers.
As good as Truss banishing Penny Mordaunt to outer darkness in a complete non-job, only to find Penny front and centre of events just two days later. One cannot help suspecting it was this that led to Truss muscling in on the royal tour of the kingdom.
This is the CEO of the LGBT Consortium (PR) being cross examined by a Barrister for the LGB Alliance(AR)
AR - we don't know how many people actual regret and are actually gay and lesbians PR - I don't agree. AR - Do you know how many there are? PR - no. AR - then you do agree with me.
It seems something big is brewing over the border.
More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.
Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!
Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win. Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
"The possibility of instability in Russia, a nuclear power, terrifies many. But it may now be unavoidable. And if that’s what is coming, we should anticipate it, plan for it, think about the possibilities as well as the dangers. “We have learned not to be scared,” Reznikov told his Kyiv audience on Saturday. “Now we ask the rest of you not to be scared too.” "
This is the conclusion of the whole article. Not that insightful, to be honest. It is what I have been saying for the last few weeks, we need to be careful of the idea of 'beating back Russia', for exactly this reason. If Russia is 'beaten back' to the point where the regime fails, then it may not ultimately work to our strategic advantage. Because what on earth happens next? Where does the friendly western regime come from? What if it is a psychopathic hardliner who makes Putin look like Nick Clegg? Or what if you end up with dozens of failed statelets in chinese debt traps? I don't know the answer, but it is clear to me that this is an area where our long term interest and that of Ukraine differs significantly. It seems like people have whipped themselves up in to an absolute frenzy over this war and are just seeing it as a David and Goliath style playground scrap, blinded by morality and unable to see the big picture. This is to such a degree that they get to a viewpoint like that expressed by Applebaum above ... "we must embrace chaos and not be scared, because we are on the right side of history" Er... really?
The woman is off her rocker, and always has been. She sees Russia and goes into stab stab stab mode. Polemicists are fun to retweet when we agree with them. They shouldn't actually be read by those looking for a genuine insight into an issue.
I don’t understand what he is complaining about? The Paddington bears being included with the flowers?
I think it refers to a gormless royal commentator/expert (of which there appears to be thousands out in the wild) opining that the late queen did a marvellous job acting in the Paddington sketch because 'there wasn't a real Paddington bear there you know'.
@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.
This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.
Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.
I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+
I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
I haven't lost a political bet for aeons. Not sure I can remember when I last did but some time around Cameron I think. Although I won on his 2015 victory and again on Brexit, predicting 52:48.
Past performance does not guarantee future success as the fund managers are forced to admit.
But, no, I won't lose money on this one. Labour will win outright. And how.
I don’t understand what he is complaining about? The Paddington bears being included with the flowers?
I think it refers to a gormless royal commentator/expert (of which there appears to be thousands out in the wild) opining that the late queen did a marvellous job acting in the Paddington sketch because 'there wasn't a real Paddington bear there you know'.
I hope Nicholas Witchell wasn't too upset by this revelation.
p.s. and the last time I was mocked for a political bet it was for telling you that the LibDems would gain control of Woking council ...
Although modesty means I must also remind any newcomers of an infamous howler regarding Putin's intentions with Ukraine. Right about the detail (that they would lose), wrong about the fact that he would be that stupid.
Not exactly. It's an odd thing about Russia. We think of it as a monolithic state where any sign of disagreement gets you locked up. It's not. it's an autocracy in which it's easy for the Government to lock you up if it wants to. Oddly, that's actually more unnerving in some ways than a dictatorship that lays down exactly what you can say. My mother's family left Russia in the 20s not because they disapproved of the Revolution - a very apolitical family, they agreed czarism had been a failure and they vaguely wished the new lot well - but because it was becoming dangerous to have no opinion - you had to have the opinion du jour.
But, from time to time - especially now - people break ranks and speak up, either thinking that they'll probably be tolerated or that it's so important that they can't remain silent. Also, there are in any case perfectly legal opponents elected - the Government rigs the system so they don't win a majority, and quite likely they wouldn't anyway, but they do exist, and probably these deputies were among them.
The problem for the autocrats is deciding when it's best to lock people up and when to smile vaguely and ignore them - and, just occasionally, to listen to them. A bit of listening would be a good idea right now,
You need to look at what is needed for a Lab majority.
Electoral Calculus suggests 41/31 or similar is around the mark (and by that point, what boundaries are considered makes much less difference).
So what is the probability of a Labour 10 point win? They are a tad ahead of that, mid term, mid a new leader bounce that is as yet weak to non-existent but could appear, ahead of pending additional cost of living pain that has had the edge taken off but has not disappeared, ahead of the public finance hit from that, ahead of a second half term of possible radical state reduction (stuff you'd ideally want to do early in an electoral cycle).
I think the mid point estimate is Labour fall short, but 25%, if a touch high, is not wildly high.
Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.
In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.
On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.
The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.
I think that is fair but there are so many unknowns
A week ago the Queen died in an event of enormous magnitude that will continue to next Mondays funeral and then onto the coronation next Spring (probably)
The war in Ukraine is edging towards a defeat for Putin of some sort and again an end to hostilities would have huge economic repercussions
Furthermore, April 23 will see the end of NI and corporation tax increases together with the triple lock giving pensioners a 10% plus rise and possibly changes to personal allowances yet to be announced by the COE. Today's poll shows tax cuts and corporation tax cuts are popular with the public
I do not claim Truss will win in 2024 but Labour do need to accept this is not a foregone conclusion
Indeed. If the war ends and the economy bounces as a result, Truss will be a very lucky general and I reckon will score a 1992-like victory.
On the other hand, sustained inflation and business bankruptcies caused by elevated energy prices remaining a problem in 2023 and 2024, coupled with high interest rates and a corresponding fall in the housing market could easily see a "change" vote for Labour plus a lot of stay-at-home Conservatives.
Combined with the most recent polling showing a small Labour majority (assuming any Truss bounce is temporary), I don't think a 25% chance of a Labour majority is a particularly wild mis-price. As others have mentioned downthread, tactical voting in England could make a big difference and Labour and the Lib Dems have two years to figure out how to make this work.
Yeah... But the fact that labour is marooned with just a couple of seats in Scotland, and none in Northern Ireland, means that labour needs to substantially outperform 1997 in England and Wales to even eke out a majority.
@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.
This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.
Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.
I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+
I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
I haven't lost a political bet for aeons. Not sure I can remember when I last did but some time around Cameron I think. Although I won on his 2015 victory and again on Brexit, predicting 52:48.
Past performance does not guarantee future success as the fund managers are forced to admit.
But, no, I won't lose money on this one. Labour will win outright. And how.
Why are you SO sure? I don't rule out a labour majority, but it will take a lot to get it.
For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view
Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.
I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.
Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.
Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.
Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.
The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places
That's not quite true: in '97 the LDs got 16.8%, in 2019 it was 11.6%. I wouldn't be surprised if the libdems bisected the two vote shares and got 14% in 2024.
History seems to suggest that the Lib Dem seat count is exponentially negatively correlated (is that a mathematical thing?) to the Tory vote share. When the conservatives do particularly well - say, 40% or more - the Lib Dem seat numbers collapse. When they do particularly badly, Lib Dem numbers surge. In both cases disproportionately to the vote share change of Con and sometimes in the opposite direction to the LD vote share.
@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.
This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.
Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.
I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+
I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
I haven't lost a political bet for aeons. Not sure I can remember when I last did but some time around Cameron I think. Although I won on his 2015 victory and again on Brexit, predicting 52:48.
Past performance does not guarantee future success as the fund managers are forced to admit.
But, no, I won't lose money on this one. Labour will win outright. And how.
@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.
This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.
Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.
I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+
I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
I haven't lost a political bet for aeons. Not sure I can remember when I last did but some time around Cameron I think. Although I won on his 2015 victory and again on Brexit, predicting 52:48.
Past performance does not guarantee future success as the fund managers are forced to admit.
But, no, I won't lose money on this one. Labour will win outright. And how.
If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.
'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.
The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.
Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.
And I believe it will matter.
How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?
Under the blazing sun, #Hongkongers are waiting long queue (current waiting time is 4 hours long) to sign the book of condolence and lay flowers for Her late Majesty #QueenElizabeth II at the British Consulate-General(@UKinHongKong) in #HongKong
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.
'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.
The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.
Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.
And I believe it will matter.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.
For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.
I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.
Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
That is undoubtedly true.
There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.
Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.
While I appreciate that PB Tory is a generic term I am not in fact a PB Tory and therefore am even more well placed than usual (which is pretty well placed) to deliver a devastating, impartial and coruscatingly accurate take on things.
Edit: and that take was that I think it will help her while SKS might well be a deadweight around Lab's neck.
Come, come sir, you fit my stereotype perfectly.
You, I suspect are not a Johnsonian, but la Truss? SOLD! To the gentleman in the top hat!
I am very relieved that Johnson has gone, and have been told by those who know that Truss will be a disaster.
So I am holding fire for the moment.
Hence my acute and insightful reading of the whole thing.
Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:
UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
This essay, which I posted a link to on the previous thread, makes a not unrelated point.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraine-war-democracy-nihilism-timothy-snyder?utm_medium=social ...On the surface, Zelensky’s simple truth that “the president is here” was meant to undo Russian propaganda, which was claiming that he had fled the city. But the video, shot in the open air as Kyiv was under attack, was also a recovery of the meaning of freedom of speech, which has been forgotten. The Greek playwright Euripides understood that the purpose of freedom of speech was to speak truth to power. The free speaker clarifies a dangerous world not only with what he says but by the risk he takes when he speaks. By saying “the president is here” as the bombs fell and the assassins approached, Zelensky was “living in truth,” in the words of Vaclav Havel, or “walking the talk,” as one of my students in prison put it. Havel’s most famous essay on the topic, “The Power of the Powerless,” was dedicated to the memory of the philosopher Jan Patocka, who died shortly after being interrogated by the communist Czechoslovak secret police. Putin, a KGB officer from 1975 until 1991, extends the sadistic tradition of interrogators: nothing is true, nothing is worthy of sacrifice, everything is a joke, everyone is for sale. Might makes right, only fools believe otherwise, and they should pay for being fools.
After 1991, the nihilism of late communism flowed together with the complacent Western idea that democracy was merely the result of impersonal forces. If it turned out that those forces pushed in different directions, for example, toward oligarchy or empire, what was there then to say? But in the tradition of Euripides or Havel or now Zelensky, it is taken for granted that the larger forces are always against the individual, and that citizenship is realized through the responsibility one takes for words and the risks one takes with deeds. Truth is not with power, but a defense against it. That is why freedom of speech is necessary: not to make excuses, not to conform, but to assert values into the world, because so doing is a precondition of self-rule...
If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.
'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.
The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.
Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.
And I believe it will matter.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.
Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.
For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.
I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.
Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.
That is undoubtedly true.
There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.
Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.
While I appreciate that PB Tory is a generic term I am not in fact a PB Tory and therefore am even more well placed than usual (which is pretty well placed) to deliver a devastating, impartial and coruscatingly accurate take on things.
Edit: and that take was that I think it will help her while SKS might well be a deadweight around Lab's neck.
Come, come sir, you fit my stereotype perfectly.
You, I suspect are not a Johnsonian, but la Truss? SOLD! To the gentleman in the top hat!
I am very relieved that Johnson has gone, and have been told by those who know that Truss will be a disaster.
So I am holding fire for the moment.
Hence my acute and insightful reading of the whole thing.
Cameron, though? You betcha.
Coalition Cameron over majority Cameron.
Yes I think we can look back on that as a golden age. But then I have a particular view of it which others might not share.
I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace. He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order. Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc
I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.
If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.
Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics
They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.
The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.
No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order
Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.
Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.
Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.
So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?
Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.
Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.
Should and reality are not bedfellows here
They really are.
If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.
If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.
They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.
Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.
I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point
We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.
Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok
Yes.
The right to be Piers Corbyn should not be infringed.
@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.
This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.
Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.
I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+
I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?
I haven't lost a political bet for aeons. Not sure I can remember when I last did but some time around Cameron I think. Although I won on his 2015 victory and again on Brexit, predicting 52:48.
Past performance does not guarantee future success as the fund managers are forced to admit.
But, no, I won't lose money on this one. Labour will win outright. And how.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.
In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.
On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.
The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.
I think that is fair but there are so many unknowns
A week ago the Queen died in an event of enormous magnitude that will continue to next Mondays funeral and then onto the coronation next Spring (probably)
The war in Ukraine is edging towards a defeat for Putin of some sort and again an end to hostilities would have huge economic repercussions
Furthermore, April 23 will see the end of NI and corporation tax increases together with the triple lock giving pensioners a 10% plus rise and possibly changes to personal allowances yet to be announced by the COE. Today's poll shows tax cuts and corporation tax cuts are popular with the public
I do not claim Truss will win in 2024 but Labour do need to accept this is not a foregone conclusion
Indeed. If the war ends and the economy bounces as a result, Truss will be a very lucky general and I reckon will score a 1992-like victory.
On the other hand, sustained inflation and business bankruptcies caused by elevated energy prices remaining a problem in 2023 and 2024, coupled with high interest rates and a corresponding fall in the housing market could easily see a "change" vote for Labour plus a lot of stay-at-home Conservatives.
Combined with the most recent polling showing a small Labour majority (assuming any Truss bounce is temporary), I don't think a 25% chance of a Labour majority is a particularly wild mis-price. As others have mentioned downthread, tactical voting in England could make a big difference and Labour and the Lib Dems have two years to figure out how to make this work.
Yeah... But the fact that labour is marooned with just a couple of seats in Scotland, and none in Northern Ireland, means that labour needs to substantially outperform 1997 in England and Wales to even eke out a majority.
Good point. Its scotland which is really screwing them, else they could be pretty confident.
Off topic, and just popping by, but I would like to claim a definitive way to determine if you are in The North or The South.
I bring you "The P/G Ratio", where P is the number of branches of Pret in a town, and G is the number of branches of Greggs.
P/G > 1 = South P/G = 1 = Midlands P/G < 1 = North
Someone with a lot of time on their hands could generate a map to illustrate this...
Brighton: 3 Prets, 3 Greggs. Midlands? Sorry, theory fails.
Hm. A quick Google reveals that there are 2229 branches of Greggs and only 460 of Pret in the UK. I proposed we need to introduce constant, Y, which is equal to 460/2229, or about 0.206:
PY/G > 1 = South PY/G = 1 = Midlands PY/G < 1 = North
That may work better?
Shouldn’t it be P/GY > 1 etc?
I don't think so. You'd naturally expect more Greggses* than Prets, so you multiply the Greggs number by the constant, which is less than 1, to make it smaller. But my maths may be wrong. My brain is addled from too many practice 11+ questions.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
The willingness to treat speech which is offensive as speech which should not be allowed is a serious problem on both right and left.
Freedom of speech does not mean you should approve of what is being said.
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
Let's assume that it is the settled view of the new Government to have fair, just and tolerable use of police power. They are facing an ingrained culture that goes that length and breadth of the police service and the civil service. The task is Herculean.
The best way I think to do it would just be to start again, and have sherrifs departments running in parallel with the police force, with overlapping responsibilities. The ensuing turf war and fight for funding would result in both services being a hell of a lot more responsive to public concerns.
It seems something big is brewing over the border.
More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.
Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!
Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win. Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
"The possibility of instability in Russia, a nuclear power, terrifies many. But it may now be unavoidable. And if that’s what is coming, we should anticipate it, plan for it, think about the possibilities as well as the dangers. “We have learned not to be scared,” Reznikov told his Kyiv audience on Saturday. “Now we ask the rest of you not to be scared too.” "
This is the conclusion of the whole article. Not that insightful, to be honest. It is what I have been saying for the last few weeks, we need to be careful of the idea of 'beating back Russia', for exactly this reason. If Russia is 'beaten back' to the point where the regime fails, then it may not ultimately work to our strategic advantage. Because what on earth happens next? Where does the friendly western regime come from? What if it is a psychopathic hardliner who makes Putin look like Nick Clegg? Or what if you end up with dozens of failed statelets in chinese debt traps? I don't know the answer, but it is clear to me that this is an area where our long term interest and that of Ukraine differs significantly. It seems like people have whipped themselves up in to an absolute frenzy over this war and are just seeing it as a David and Goliath style playground scrap, blinded by morality and unable to see the big picture. This is to such a degree that they get to a viewpoint like that expressed by Applebaum above ... "we must embrace chaos and not be scared, because we are on the right side of history" Er... really?
There are definitely scary options ahead. A military coup, for instance, with a demand for recognition backed up by nuclear weapons. Or the election (or "election") of a hard-liner who thinks that Putin was too soft to call a war a war, never mind to win it.
But Russia also gains nothing from hostility with Europe. They're losing their biggest customers for their biggest exports, and are cut off from vital sources of technology and trade. Putin's supposed strength was his ability to survive forcing his people to endure harsh conditions in a way that no western leader could, but all of the evidence so far is that western publics are willing to take risks and endure hardships for a just cause. There is little sense in Russia doubling down on what already appears to be failing.
In reality, Russia is experiencing a delayed loss of empire. The same process that happened in Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, French, and British* empires is now happening to them - the last of the European empires. The war with Ukraine is like the French occupation of Algeria, and the conclusion that it is unwinnable ought to be similarly accompanied by an acceptance that the age of empire is over. Russia is still a great nation, but it will have to measure its greatness by the strength of its economy and the happiness of its people, as western democracies have had to. Joining the European club of former empires would not be a bad outcome for Russia, especially as it seems inevitable and that attempts to resist it cause more harm than good.
* Of course, the European empires didn't disappear overnight, and some of their far-flung outposts and colonial entanglements remain. And the attitude of European countries toward Africa in particular remains alternately dismissive and paternalistic. But real change did happen throughout the 20th century, change that the Russian empire only avoided by re-branding as the Soviet Union.
What % of the vote does Labour/Tory need to win a majority? It should be possible to build a model that predicts this reasonably accurately I would think.
The latest polling result means Labour are up 10 points and the Tories are down 8 points vs. 2019 result.
I think that's roughly equivalent to 1997 election result -> when Lab went up by 9 points and Tories down by 11 points.
The SNP are definitely a complicating factor... but it does look to me like we should expect a pretty big change in seats based on current polls.
It's not about the percentage, it's the gap. In 2015 the Tories won a majority with 37%, in 2017 they lost their majority with 43%.
It seems something big is brewing over the border.
More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.
Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!
Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win. Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
"The possibility of instability in Russia, a nuclear power, terrifies many. But it may now be unavoidable. And if that’s what is coming, we should anticipate it, plan for it, think about the possibilities as well as the dangers. “We have learned not to be scared,” Reznikov told his Kyiv audience on Saturday. “Now we ask the rest of you not to be scared too.” "
This is the conclusion of the whole article. Not that insightful, to be honest. It is what I have been saying for the last few weeks, we need to be careful of the idea of 'beating back Russia', for exactly this reason. If Russia is 'beaten back' to the point where the regime fails, then it may not ultimately work to our strategic advantage. Because what on earth happens next? Where does the friendly western regime come from? What if it is a psychopathic hardliner who makes Putin look like Nick Clegg? Or what if you end up with dozens of failed statelets in chinese debt traps? I don't know the answer, but it is clear to me that this is an area where our long term interest and that of Ukraine differs significantly. It seems like people have whipped themselves up in to an absolute frenzy over this war and are just seeing it as a David and Goliath style playground scrap, blinded by morality and unable to see the big picture. This is to such a degree that they get to a viewpoint like that expressed by Applebaum above ... "we must embrace chaos and not be scared, because we are on the right side of history" Er... really?
Our strategic interest is the pre 2014 borders and no further. We can’t allow Putin’s previous invasion to be validated.
As for the rest that’s up to Russia. My guess is Putin survived but weakened and retired in a couple of years
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
It seems something big is brewing over the border.
More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.
Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!
Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win. Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.
This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.
I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?
"The possibility of instability in Russia, a nuclear power, terrifies many. But it may now be unavoidable. And if that’s what is coming, we should anticipate it, plan for it, think about the possibilities as well as the dangers. “We have learned not to be scared,” Reznikov told his Kyiv audience on Saturday. “Now we ask the rest of you not to be scared too.” "
This is the conclusion of the whole article. Not that insightful, to be honest. It is what I have been saying for the last few weeks, we need to be careful of the idea of 'beating back Russia', for exactly this reason. If Russia is 'beaten back' to the point where the regime fails, then it may not ultimately work to our strategic advantage. Because what on earth happens next? Where does the friendly western regime come from? What if it is a psychopathic hardliner who makes Putin look like Nick Clegg? Or what if you end up with dozens of failed statelets in chinese debt traps? I don't know the answer, but it is clear to me that this is an area where our long term interest and that of Ukraine differs significantly. It seems like people have whipped themselves up in to an absolute frenzy over this war and are just seeing it as a David and Goliath style playground scrap, blinded by morality and unable to see the big picture. This is to such a degree that they get to a viewpoint like that expressed by Applebaum above ... "we must embrace chaos and not be scared, because we are on the right side of history" Er... really?
Right at the start of this Johnson said that, "Putin's venture must fail and must be seen to fail."
What we've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that we can't force democracy onto people. They have to come to it themselves. What Ukraine shows us is that people will still come to democracy without our intervention, but they might need or help to defend themselves against neighbouring autocracies.
So that's what we should do. We help defend democratic Ukraine. We show autocracies that we won't let them crush democracies. It's then up to Russians to decide what they do next. They might not choose a democratic route now, so we have to be ready to defend ourselves against them in the future.
We can't impose order on the whole world, but we can stand alongside another democracy and help defend it.
I don’t understand what he is complaining about? The Paddington bears being included with the flowers?
I think it refers to a gormless royal commentator/expert (of which there appears to be thousands out in the wild) opining that the late queen did a marvellous job acting in the Paddington sketch because 'there wasn't a real Paddington bear there you know'.
As a monarchist I have to say that being a royal commentator appears to be an insanely boring, nay, soul destroying job. What do they do outside these events?
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
HYUFD is Chief Political Correspondent for the BBC? That must explain the wall to wall coverage over the last few days.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?" Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
1) I’m sure you don’t want the Home Secretary intervening in operational Police Matters (least of all recent incumbents) and 2) Policing and Prosecution decisions in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Government - and the Lord Advocate who is a Minister in the Scottish Government - probably an even worse idea.
What % of the vote does Labour/Tory need to win a majority? It should be possible to build a model that predicts this reasonably accurately I would think.
The latest polling result means Labour are up 10 points and the Tories are down 8 points vs. 2019 result.
I think that's roughly equivalent to 1997 election result -> when Lab went up by 9 points and Tories down by 11 points.
The SNP are definitely a complicating factor... but it does look to me like we should expect a pretty big change in seats based on current polls.
It's not about the percentage, it's the gap. In 2015 the Tories won a majority with 37%, in 2017 they lost their majority with 43%.
And on today's Comres the Tories are on 35%, lower than under Cameron, May and Boris and Major 1992 but still higher than Hague, Howard and Major in 1997 got. Labour on 42% though so that means Starmer is currently on course for the highest Labour voteshare at a general election since Blair in 1997
Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.
"Help Ukraine who you raped 80 years ago from being raped again" from me is hardly state-sponsored constitutional advice to Germany.
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
People like you, it's not complicated.
I speak English. I'm intrigued by what you think that means.
Armchair generals, chickenhawks, people who give it large on the internet and seem to see Ukraine as a proxy for their own psychodramas, often with a EUrophobic streak running through it all.
Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.
They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/support-continues-for-hong-kongers-building-new-lives-in-the-uk
"Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
Zoe Williams
The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)
You, I suspect are not a Johnsonian, but la Truss? SOLD! To the gentleman in the top hat!
The right to be Piers Corbyn should not be infringed.
So I am holding fire for the moment.
Hence my acute and insightful reading of the whole thing.
Cameron, though? You betcha.
Imo 70% is way way wayyyyyyy too high. It suggests 100 labour gains is almost nailed on. By elections parliamentary and local do not suggest this is certain at all. For me its 50/50 that Labour get to 280 seats, maybe 10% chance of 320 plus at this juncture
Free speech be damned - burn him at the stake!
"Of 22 European countries analysed, only Sweden had recorded a significant rise in deaths since 2000"
Sweden’s gun violence rate has soared due to gangs, report says"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shootings-have-risen-in-sweden-despite-fall-across-europe-report-finds
This is the conclusion of the whole article. Not that insightful, to be honest.
It is what I have been saying for the last few weeks, we need to be careful of the idea of 'beating back Russia', for exactly this reason. If Russia is 'beaten back' to the point where the regime fails, then it may not ultimately work to our strategic advantage. Because what on earth happens next? Where does the friendly western regime come from?
What if it is a psychopathic hardliner who makes Putin look like Nick Clegg? Or what if you end up with dozens of failed statelets in chinese debt traps?
I don't know the answer, but it is clear to me that this is an area where our long term interest and that of Ukraine differs significantly.
It seems like people have whipped themselves up in to an absolute frenzy over this war and are just seeing it as a David and Goliath style playground scrap, blinded by morality and unable to see the big picture.
This is to such a degree that they get to a viewpoint like that expressed by Applebaum above ... "we must embrace chaos and not be scared, because we are on the right side of history" Er... really?
"Breach of the peace" getting abused at the minute by the Police in a way that would make Carrie Lam's government proud.
It should be possible to build a model that predicts this reasonably accurately I would think.
The latest polling result means Labour are up 10 points and the Tories are down 8 points vs. 2019 result.
I think that's roughly equivalent to 1997 election result -> when Lab went up by 9 points and Tories down by 11 points.
The SNP are definitely a complicating factor... but it does look to me like we should expect a pretty big change in seats based on current polls.
AR - we don't know how many people actual regret and are actually gay and lesbians
PR - I don't agree.
AR - Do you know how many there are?
PR - no.
AR - then you do agree with me.
https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569314750751821824
I'm now intrigued by the nature of my "ilk"
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672
Past performance does not guarantee future success as the fund managers are forced to admit.
But, no, I won't lose money on this one. Labour will win outright. And how.
Although modesty means I must also remind any newcomers of an infamous howler regarding Putin's intentions with Ukraine. Right about the detail (that they would lose), wrong about the fact that he would be that stupid.
But, from time to time - especially now - people break ranks and speak up, either thinking that they'll probably be tolerated or that it's so important that they can't remain silent. Also, there are in any case perfectly legal opponents elected - the Government rigs the system so they don't win a majority, and quite likely they wouldn't anyway, but they do exist, and probably these deputies were among them.
The problem for the autocrats is deciding when it's best to lock people up and when to smile vaguely and ignore them - and, just occasionally, to listen to them. A bit of listening would be a good idea right now,
Electoral Calculus suggests 41/31 or similar is around the mark (and by that point, what boundaries are considered makes much less difference).
So what is the probability of a Labour 10
point win? They are a tad ahead of that, mid
term, mid a new leader bounce that is as yet weak to non-existent but could appear, ahead of pending additional cost of living pain that has had the edge taken off but has not disappeared, ahead of the public finance hit from that, ahead of a second half term of possible radical state reduction (stuff you'd ideally want to do early in an electoral cycle).
I think the mid point estimate is Labour fall short, but 25%, if a touch high, is not wildly high.
And wearing the necklace
New and even worse footage of Andrew feeling up his daughter
I expect many a tear will be shed as she processes to St Giles
Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.
Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.
Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraine-war-democracy-nihilism-timothy-snyder?utm_medium=social
...On the surface, Zelensky’s simple truth that “the president is here” was meant to undo Russian propaganda, which was claiming that he had fled the city. But the video, shot in the open air as Kyiv was under attack, was also a recovery of the meaning of freedom of speech, which has been forgotten. The Greek playwright Euripides understood that the purpose of freedom of speech was to speak truth to power. The free speaker clarifies a dangerous world not only with what he says but by the risk he takes when he speaks. By saying “the president is here” as the bombs fell and the assassins approached, Zelensky was “living in truth,” in the words of Vaclav Havel, or “walking the talk,” as one of my students in prison put it. Havel’s most famous essay on the topic, “The Power of the Powerless,” was dedicated to the memory of the philosopher Jan Patocka, who died shortly after being interrogated by the communist Czechoslovak secret police. Putin, a KGB officer from 1975 until 1991, extends the sadistic tradition of interrogators: nothing is true, nothing is worthy of sacrifice, everything is a joke, everyone is for sale. Might makes right, only fools believe otherwise, and they should pay for being fools.
After 1991, the nihilism of late communism flowed together with the complacent Western idea that democracy was merely the result of impersonal forces. If it turned out that those forces pushed in different directions, for example, toward oligarchy or empire, what was there then to say? But in the tradition of Euripides or Havel or now Zelensky, it is taken for granted that the larger forces are always against the individual, and that citizenship is realized through the responsibility one takes for words and the risks one takes with deeds. Truth is not with power, but a defense against it. That is why freedom of speech is necessary: not to make excuses, not to conform, but to assert values into the world, because so doing is a precondition of self-rule...
But my maths may be wrong. My brain is addled from too many practice 11+ questions.
*Other plurals are no doubt available.
Freedom of speech does not mean you should approve of what is being said.
The best way I think to do it would just be to start again, and have sherrifs departments running in parallel with the police force, with overlapping responsibilities. The ensuing turf war and fight for funding would result in both services being a hell of a lot more responsive to public concerns.
But Russia also gains nothing from hostility with Europe. They're losing their biggest customers for their biggest exports, and are cut off from vital sources of technology and trade. Putin's supposed strength was his ability to survive forcing his people to endure harsh conditions in a way that no western leader could, but all of the evidence so far is that western publics are willing to take risks and endure hardships for a just cause. There is little sense in Russia doubling down on what already appears to be failing.
In reality, Russia is experiencing a delayed loss of empire. The same process that happened in Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Dutch, Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, French, and British* empires is now happening to them - the last of the European empires. The war with Ukraine is like the French occupation of Algeria, and the conclusion that it is unwinnable ought to be similarly accompanied by an acceptance that the age of empire is over. Russia is still a great nation, but it will have to measure its greatness by the strength of its economy and the happiness of its people, as western democracies have had to. Joining the European club of former empires would not be a bad outcome for Russia, especially as it seems inevitable and that attempts to resist it cause more harm than good.
* Of course, the European empires didn't disappear overnight, and some of their far-flung outposts and colonial entanglements remain. And the attitude of European countries toward Africa in particular remains alternately dismissive and paternalistic. But real change did happen throughout the 20th century, change that the Russian empire only avoided by re-branding as the Soviet Union.
As for the rest that’s up to Russia. My guess is Putin survived but weakened and retired in a couple of years
You are a recruiting sargent for republicans
What we've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan is that we can't force democracy onto people. They have to come to it themselves. What Ukraine shows us is that people will still come to democracy without our intervention, but they might need or help to defend themselves against neighbouring autocracies.
So that's what we should do. We help defend democratic Ukraine. We show autocracies that we won't let them crush democracies. It's then up to Russians to decide what they do next. They might not choose a democratic route now, so we have to be ready to defend ourselves against them in the future.
We can't impose order on the whole world, but we can stand alongside another democracy and help defend it.
Leave it to Hello.
2) Policing and Prosecution decisions in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Government - and the Lord Advocate who is a Minister in the Scottish Government - probably an even worse idea.
That kind of thing.