What will the King’s speech do to rising pessimism? – politicalbetting.com

System

What will the King’s speech do to rising pessimism? – politicalbetting.com

Are Britons optimistic or pessimistic about the general direction in which the UK is heading? (29 October)Pessimistic: 44% (+1)Optimistic: 28% (-4)Changes +/- 22 October pic.twitter.com/1cytXsCh15

Read the full story here

GIN1138

First like Sir Kier

HYUFD

Of course the next King's speech may be for a Labour government and written for him by PM Starmer.

Don't think there was anything in today's that changed the weather for Sunak

Sandpit

3rd rate speech

Luckyguy1983

Just shameful that this is Sunak's agenda given the issues we face. Beyond useless. Zombie Government. Get rid.

Leon

fpt for @numbertwelve


"For much of his leadership Blair instinctively ran from anything that could give him any cause to be unpopular. So yes he could have tried to force us into the Euro, but he wouldn’t have done, because that wasn’t his way. Also, as we all know, Gordon Brown was not a fan of the idea."

+++

I am firmly of the belief Blair had enough political capital, and liberal media backing, to have faced down Brown and forced us into the euro in 1997-8. He was so overwhelmingly popular. He could have done it in his first 100 days and we would barely have noticed in the giddy whirl

However , as you say, he has a pathological need to be liked, and it would have annoyed people and made them dislike him, so it didn't happen

On such personal psychological flaws, the fate of nations turn

TimS

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

numbertwelve

Genuine question, has a Speech from the Throne ever really changed or reset a narrative?

I’ve always found it a very Westminster bubble day really. Get Liz or Charlie dressed up to blabber about whatever the government buzzwords of the day are, send them back to the Palace while the politicians have a bit of a shouting match, nothing of great consequence is really gleaned or achieved, beyond the functions of the State being performed, which is the main reason for it (and hence why it’s important, but it’s important for the tradition and the constitutional significance, not really the political significance).

Nigelb

What will the King’s speech do to rising pessimism?

What it will do to everything else - feck all.

SirNorfolkPassmore

The low number of Bills proposed may speak to a relatively early General Election. I think most people had ruled out December/January anyway, but this really doesn't have enough in it to make the period beyond the summer recess anything other than wash-up (if indeed it gets that far).

felix

The polls reflect much disillusionment with the current government overlaid with a marked lack of enthusiasm for the next one.

Leon

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

SirNorfolkPassmore

numbertwelve said:

Genuine question, has a Speech from the Throne ever really changed or reset a narrative?

I’ve always found it a very Westminster bubble day really. Get Liz or Charlie dressed up to blabber about whatever the government buzzwords of the day are, send them back to the Palace while the politicians have a bit of a shouting match, nothing of great consequence is really gleaned or achieved, beyond the functions of the State being performed, which is the main reason for it (and hence why it’s important, but it’s important for the tradition and the constitutional significance, not really the political significance).

I think it matters much more to parliamentarians than the public.

But I do think it genuinely matters to many MPs - is there an agenda there that the Tory backbencher is enthusiastic about, that they look forward to sparring with the opposition over and selling to the public?

There's a bit there on that front - I can see drilling be popular with some Tory MPs, some tough on crime stuff (although the elephant in the room is creaking prison system), phased smoking ban potentially has some appeal. But it's light, I have to say.

Ghedebrav

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Andy_JS

O/T

"Portuguese PM António Costa resigns as corruption crisis explodes"

https://www.ft.com/content/928a5144-749a-4e21-b52d-c01c5d52a46c

Nigelb

Maxwell does too.
Looking ominous.

LostPassword

TimS said:

...

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government.

...

All other things being equal I think you would expect to see optimism rise as the election draws closer and people anticipate a change of government.

I think in some respects pessimism would be good for Sunak. If people don't believe that anything better is possible, then they might be tempted to vote for the status quo to avoid a perceived risk of a Labour government making things worse.

Ghedebrav

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

Sandpit

FPT:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

IanB2 said:

The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.

So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.

A lot of reforms the country needed in 1997, like introducing PR, didn't happen at that time because Labour won such a big majority. The same thing could happen again next year. It would be better to have a coalition imo.

Imagine if Blair had said "we're going into the euro" in 1997. He was so popular he could have forced it through with no problem at all, and no need for a popular vote, either. We all adored him (or tolerated him)

The entirety of British history woulda changed. It's weird how he screwed up in so many ways - from his perspective

As with every dislikeable politician, there are always things they get right. The massive efforts put in by Gordon Brown to keep the UK out of the Euro, were undoubtedly his finest hour.

Nigelb

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

We can wait to rejoin alongside Ukraine.

Sandpit

Did anyone lay the 1.01 on the Afghans to win this?

Pulpstar

Sandpit said:

Did anyone lay the 1.01 on the Afghans to win this?

Cricinfo reckoned Aus were 0.21% or ~500-1 to win at one point. Now 6.35%.

TimS

felix said:

The polls reflect much disillusionment with the current government overlaid with a marked lack of enthusiasm for the next one.

I wonder whether the lack of enthusiasm for the next government is as much just a meme as anything grounded in fact. Approval ratings for Labour and SKS are OK, across most aspects of government. Labour polling is pretty strong.

Is the seeming lack of enthusiasm a victim of rose tinted nostalgia about the Blair years? In my lifetime there have been only 3 proper changes of government: Callaghan to Thatcher in 1979, Major to Blair in 1997 and Brown to Cameron in 2010. There was by all accounts no great enthusiasm in 1979. In 1997 there was certainly a sense of a refreshing change on the horizon but the reporting at the time was, just like now, dominated by disappointment with the tired and fractious Tory government on its way out. Blair remained a bit unknown and unproven. And in 2010 the lack of enthusiasm for the alternative was such that the Lib Dems were polling in the mid to high 20s during the election campaign.

So I certainly don't think the public is unusually cool towards Starmer's Labour. They seem about as enthused as they ever get, which is not much. I'd say the same of business sentiment too.

Leon

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

TimS

I like this line from Starmer's response to the KS:

“Homelessness is a choice: it’s a political choice,”

“Without a serious Home Secretary there can be no serious government and he cannot be a serious prime minister.”

nico679

Sunak has at least had a more pragmatic approach to the EU rather than the everything related to it being toxic .

Highlighted in recent days by at last some common sense re school trips to the UK . Re-joining horizon, the WF etc . Of course the right wing press would have gone into meltdown had Starmer done these things .

Not wanting to re-hash the Brexit drama but the biggest mistake was to put a so called Remainer in charge in May who spent most of her time over-compensating for that .

OnlyLivingBoy

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/nov/07/jailed-for-murder-i-didnt-commit-spent-seven-life-changing-years-in-prison

This is a quite incredible story. Inevitably the vile Grayling makes an appearance as a minor villain of the piece - do people like him go into politics with the intention of making other people's lives as bad as possible in any way they can manage?

TimS

They're going to bloody win this aren't they? Grrr

Nigelb

TimS said:

They're going to bloody win this aren't they? Grrr

Streakiest match winning innings ever ?

TimS

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

I'm nearly there but proper closure will require a cathartic series of Portillo moments at the election next year.

Benpointer

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

I'm nearly there but proper closure will require a cathartic series of Portillo moments at the election next year.

... followed by a Labour government swiftly moving to a Switzerland/Norway relationship to the EU.

Rejoin? Not in my lifetime.

Sandpit

Okay, so I made a joke about these two feckers putting on 200 runs for the 8th wicket - and now they’re half way there, running at 8 or 9 an over, even accounting for only Maxwell getting the runs.

Anabobazina

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Leon

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

I'm nearly there but proper closure will require a cathartic series of Portillo moments at the election next year.

The EU swinging hard right has given quite a few of my smarter Remainer friends (who are mainly on the left) additional pause for thought

LostPassword

TimS said:

felix said:

The polls reflect much disillusionment with the current government overlaid with a marked lack of enthusiasm for the next one.

I wonder whether the lack of enthusiasm for the next government is as much just a meme as anything grounded in fact. Approval ratings for Labour and SKS are OK, across most aspects of government. Labour polling is pretty strong.

Is the seeming lack of enthusiasm a victim of rose tinted nostalgia about the Blair years? In my lifetime there have been only 3 proper changes of government: Callaghan to Thatcher in 1979, Major to Blair in 1997 and Brown to Cameron in 2010. There was by all accounts no great enthusiasm in 1979. In 1997 there was certainly a sense of a refreshing change on the horizon but the reporting at the time was, just like now, dominated by disappointment with the tired and fractious Tory government on its way out. Blair remained a bit unknown and unproven. And in 2010 the lack of enthusiasm for the alternative was such that the Lib Dems were polling in the mid to high 20s during the election campaign.

So I certainly don't think the public is unusually cool towards Starmer's Labour. They seem about as enthused as they ever get, which is not much. I'd say the same of business sentiment too.

I think there was a lot of enthusiasm in 1997. I think a lot of it was a product of how disappointing the Labour defeat in 1992 had been. After the poll tax and seeing off Thatcher, a lot of lectures expected to win in 1992, and losing was crushing. So the relief in 1997 generated a lot of enthusiasm.

This doesn't apply this time round because Corbyn's defeat in 2019 wasn't a surprise. And I think there's also a lot less enthusiasm just because - after Brexit, Covid, Boris, Truss and the decline in living standards - Britain is feeling a bit exhausted. You might think that some Blair-style optimism would be helpful in the circumstances, but I think it would come across as detached from reality.

So, no enthusiasm. The best Starmer can hope for is a grim determination to get a job that needs doing done, and done properly.

Nigelb

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/nov/07/jailed-for-murder-i-didnt-commit-spent-seven-life-changing-years-in-prison

This is a quite incredible story. Inevitably the vile Grayling makes an appearance as a minor villain of the piece - do people like him go into politics with the intention of making other people's lives as bad as possible in any way they can manage?

And, of course, the Met.
...A month after his father’s death, astonishing information was uncovered. Although the police had taken Hallam’s phone for evidence, they had not bothered to search through it. The new investigation by Thames Valley police did the basic work that the Metropolitan police failed to do in the first place.

The phone contained photos that Hallam had taken at his grandmother’s house on the afternoon of the murder ...

Sadly, the story is not in the least bit incredible.

Sandpit

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

TOPPING

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Anabobazina

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

Meanwhile, you clearly haven't got over it (despite winning) –– evidenced by your persistent use of childish epithets for your own friends.

Andy_JS

The Australian top order must be feeling stupid atm as the team gets within 100 runs of the target.

Andy_JS

TimS said:

I like this line from Starmer's response to the KS:

“Homelessness is a choice: it’s a political choice,”

“Without a serious Home Secretary there can be no serious government and he cannot be a serious prime minister.”

Grayling will be out of politics after the next election.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/06/chris-grayling-joins-list-of-tories-standing-down-at-next-election

Nigelb

.

Andy_JS said:

The Australian top order must be feeling stupid atm as the team gets within 100 runs of the target.

Not as bad as the poor chap who dropped Maxwell.

dixiedean

This is seriously weak stuff from Sunak.

Richard_Tyndall

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

numbertwelve

Erm… Sunak isn’t very good, is he?

DecrepiterJohnL

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/nov/07/jailed-for-murder-i-didnt-commit-spent-seven-life-changing-years-in-prison

This is a quite incredible story. Inevitably the vile Grayling makes an appearance as a minor villain of the piece - do people like him go into politics with the intention of making other people's lives as bad as possible in any way they can manage?

Interview without a solicitor, lazy and/or incompetent police and barristers, unreliable or false witnesses and a gullible jury. All the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice, even before we get to Chris Grayling.

OnlyLivingBoy

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

I'm nearly there but proper closure will require a cathartic series of Portillo moments at the election next year.

The EU swinging hard right has given quite a few of my smarter Remainer friends (who are mainly on the left) additional pause for thought

Your smarter friends are Remainers mainly on the left - does that not give you additional pause for thought? 🤔

numbertwelve

dixiedean said:

This is seriously weak stuff from Sunak.

He seems to think that a political zinger in 2023 will be that Starmer once argued that maybe there shouldn’t be a monarchy?

Of course, the Tories were very happy to let someone who argued exactly the same thing be their last PM…

dixiedean

numbertwelve said:

Erm… Sunak isn’t very good, is he?

Tory backbenchers don't seem to think so.

SouthamObserver

Having Braverman sitting next to Sunak was not a smart move.

Sandpit

Required run rate now under the current RR.

NerysHughes

Nigelb said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/nov/07/jailed-for-murder-i-didnt-commit-spent-seven-life-changing-years-in-prison

This is a quite incredible story. Inevitably the vile Grayling makes an appearance as a minor villain of the piece - do people like him go into politics with the intention of making other people's lives as bad as possible in any way they can manage?

And, of course, the Met.
...A month after his father’s death, astonishing information was uncovered. Although the police had taken Hallam’s phone for evidence, they had not bothered to search through it. The new investigation by Thames Valley police did the basic work that the Metropolitan police failed to do in the first place.

The phone contained photos that Hallam had taken at his grandmother’s house on the afternoon of the murder ...

Sadly, the story is not in the least bit incredible.

The police do not care if someone actually did the crime, they just want a guilty verdict. Read The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice by Bob Woffinden.

And look at Michael Stone who has been in prison for 23 years for the Chillenden Murders when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever and Levi Bellfield has admitted to the crime.

TheScreamingEagles

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

I paid for my poppy via contactless.

This year I really want to honour those British soldiers murdered by Jewish terrorists like Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice.

Nigelb

dixiedean said:

This is seriously weak stuff from Sunak.

On brand, then.

Anabobazina

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

TheScreamingEagles

Is Stephen Flynn overcompensating with that huge flower?

Anabobazina

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

Yes, I understand all that. But what exactly can the state do to force anyone to attend? See my post above.

Anabobazina

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

LOL. Assume poppy sellers can buy a SumUp machine like every other man and his dog.

Sandpit

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

RobD

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Well the state manages to put people in prison, so I doubt it’d have much difficulty getting you to attend the magistrates if it really wanted to.

Anabobazina

RobD said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Well the state manages to put people in prison, so I doubt it’d have much difficulty getting you to attend the magistrates if it really wanted to.

Sure, okay, fine. How is it going to do this? Is it going to physically drag every ne'er do well to the local mags? I have some experience of these courts (not as a criminal you understand) – many of those summoned to the dock can barely stand up straight never mind remember a court date.

Phil

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/nov/07/jailed-for-murder-i-didnt-commit-spent-seven-life-changing-years-in-prison

This is a quite incredible story. Inevitably the vile Grayling makes an appearance as a minor villain of the piece - do people like him go into politics with the intention of making other people's lives as bad as possible in any way they can manage?

Interview without a solicitor, lazy and/or incompetent police and barristers, unreliable or false witnesses and a gullible jury. All the ingredients for a miscarriage of justice, even before we get to Chris Grayling.

This is why people say “do not talk to the police, ever”. They will take a perfectly reasonable answer to a question & twist it to make you look guilty in court. You can think you’re being helpful whilst damning yourself. There’s no incentive for them to ascertain whether you’re actually guilty or not - only whether they can put together a case that can be made to stand up in court.

Talk to the police only if you have to & then only with a solicitor at your side. Ideally one you’re paying for yourself if you can afford it but the duty solicitor is a whole world better than no solicitor at all.

Easy to say of course, harder to put into practice when the police are “inviting” you to interview.

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

Yes, I understand all that. But what exactly can the state do to force anyone to attend? See my post above.

Are you serious?

You would be in contempt of court and the judge/magistrate would issue a warrant for your arrest. Once arrested the police would then ensure that you attended court. It's not difficult.

Anabobazina

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

TOPPING

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

I paid for my poppy via contactless.

This year I really want to honour those British soldiers murdered by Jewish terrorists like Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice.

Absolutely. Is there a special colour of poppy to commemorate those bobbies serving the British Empire who were minding their own business on the Old Kent Road when they were ambushed and taken hostage.

Anabobazina

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

Yes, I understand all that. But what exactly can the state do to force anyone to attend? See my post above.

Are you serious?

You would be in contempt of court and the judge/magistrate would issue a warrant for your arrest. Once arrested the police would then ensure that you attended court. It's not difficult.

Okay, fine. So everyone who fails to attend court when summoned is in contempt and will be arrested and duly frogmarched to court by a press gang of cops at a later date? Given my experience of low-level criminals, I'm not sure it's going to be quite as straightforward as you imply.

Nigelb

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

The legislation is said to provide for the use of 'reasonable force'.
It's purely performative, naturally.

TheScreamingEagles

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

I paid for my poppy via contactless.

This year I really want to honour those British soldiers murdered by Jewish terrorists like Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice.

Absolutely. Is there a special colour of poppy to commemorate those bobbies serving the British Empire who were minding their own business on the Old Kent Road when they were ambushed and taken hostage.

This was in Mandate Palestine, involving soldiers.

Their bodies were booby trapped.

Learn some history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair

Alanbrooke

That jump in pessimism kicks in around the Palestine mess. Enough to depress us all.

Fairliered

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

TOPPING

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

I paid for my poppy via contactless.

This year I really want to honour those British soldiers murdered by Jewish terrorists like Sergeant Clifford Martin and Sergeant Mervyn Paice.

Absolutely. Is there a special colour of poppy to commemorate those bobbies serving the British Empire who were minding their own business on the Old Kent Road when they were ambushed and taken hostage.

This was in Mandate Palestine, involving soldiers.

Their bodies were booby trapped.

Learn some history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sergeants_affair

You mean they were engaged by the British Empire in suppression of the indigenous peoples of another country far away? I refuse to believe it.

Sandpit

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

Because they’re in custody already, having being found guilty at a previous hearing of a serious offence and remanded in custody. The proposed change is so that the convicted criminal is no longer allowed to avoid the victims at the sentencing hearing.

The families of Lucy Letby’s victims were there every day for months, and were denied the right to address her in court after her conviction.

That situation, very narrowly, is what the government seeks to change. It’s not about your average scrote being dragged to the magistrates.

Scott_xP

TheScreamingEagles said:

Is Stephen Flynn overcompensating with that huge flower?

He is going to see the new hunger games movie later...

Anabobazina

Nigelb said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

The legislation is said to provide for the use of 'reasonable force'.
It's purely performative, naturally.

Now we are getting to the nub of it. I will make a bold prediction right now: many will continue to decline to attend the dock. Nothing will happen to most of them. And very few coppers will be sent to round them up. Many of the those who decline to attend will have no knowledge that they were supposed to be in the dock, due to having not read the letter, having forgotten or being permanently intoxicated.

Leon

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

I'm nearly there but proper closure will require a cathartic series of Portillo moments at the election next year.

The EU swinging hard right has given quite a few of my smarter Remainer friends (who are mainly on the left) additional pause for thought

Your smarter friends are Remainers mainly on the left - does that not give you additional pause for thought? 🤔

No, I mean nearly all my Remainer friends are on the left, and some are smart and some are less smart, and the smarter ones have noticed the rise of the New Right on the continent

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

Yes, I understand all that. But what exactly can the state do to force anyone to attend? See my post above.

Are you serious?

You would be in contempt of court and the judge/magistrate would issue a warrant for your arrest. Once arrested the police would then ensure that you attended court. It's not difficult.

Okay, fine. So everyone who fails to attend court when summoned is in contempt and will be arrested and duly frogmarched to court by a press gang of cops at a later date? Given my experience of low-level criminals, I'm not sure it's going to be quite as straightforward as you imply.

Well, again, as others have said, this is about people in custody already who refuse to go to sentencing hearings. So there are a whole bunch of other issues with that.

In principle people are already compelled to attend the courts, and to the extent that they fail to do so it's because the criminal justice system is underfunded. But if the system believes it is important enough to get you there then they will, to the extent of pursuing extradition if you've fled abroad, for example.

Again, I think this is a bizarre argument for you to make.

Anabobazina

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

Because they’re in custody already, having being found guilty at a previous hearing of a serious offence and remanded in custody. The proposed change is so that the convicted criminal is no longer allowed to avoid the victims at the sentencing hearing.

The families of Lucy Letby’s victims were there every day for months, and were denied the right to address her in court after her conviction.

That situation, very narrowly, is what the government seeks to change. It’s not about your average scrote being dragged to the magistrates.

Fair enough. If that is indeed the policy. That is not how it has been publicised, which is much more broad brush. But that is probably the fault of the press.

Pulpstar

This WC is delivering

Andy_JS

They shouldn't have banned runners in international cricket.

Carnyx

Alanbrooke said:

That jump in pessimism kicks in around the Palestine mess. Enough to depress us all.

More likely the attitudes displayed by the Tory regime to the future of the UK with HS2 and so on. I wonder what the regional distribution of that is.

Anabobazina

Fairliered said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

Definitely noticed a huge decline in people wearing them and indeed people selling them. It does appear that poppy fascism may have backfired: there was a period not too long ago where newsreaders/poilticians/anyone on the telly were lambasted by an angry twitter mob if their failed to wear a poppy (which is easily done by accident – the sodding things just fall off).

rcs1000

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

AIUI, most sentencing in absentia happens when either (a) the person in question is already in prison for something else, and it would be expensive to drag them to Court, or (b) because they are sick or out the country.

I assume this is an *option* for victims, who wish to see the accused, rather than a requirement? Otherwise, we'll be adding a whole bunch of cost transporting prisoners from prison in Northumberland to a court in London to be sentenced for a crime where they pled guilty from afar? And - given the court service is already straining at the edges as far as timings go - are we really going to add additional costs rescheduling sentencing?

Because that's my fear here: a very understandable change is going to make our already poorly functioning courts work even less well. Which means fewer guilty people convicted.

DougSeal

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

The longer term trend on this is not so bad. People much less pessimistic than they were a year ago, and roughly similar to where they were just before Partygate broke out.

As 1997 showed, this doesn't necessarily translate into Tory votes, in fact people may partly feel more optimistic because they expect a change of government. I think there are a few things likely to make the public less pessimistic than in 2022:

- Inflation is now falling, albeit still high, rather than skyrocketing. Particularly noticeable in heating bills as we enter winter
- For all that Sunak's government is a bit limp, it's not the same crazed chaos as under latter day Johnson or the Truss-Kwarteng fever dream
- The Russia-Ukraine war was pretty terrifying when it started but is now part of the furniture

So I don't think I agree with the header. There's a short term rise in pessimism but it's well down longer term.

Yes, I agree

Also, I think the nation is finally getting over Brexit. The departure of Boris has probably drawn a lot of the poison, but I also sense a genuine feeling of: it's done, like it or not, make the best of it. Clearly a lot of people, a sizeable majority, regret it - as things stand- but I doubt half of those people want to actually revisit it

This itself removes a shadow from British politics. We are in the post-Brexit era now, with its advantages and disadvantages; turns out it wasn't the immediate sunlit uplands promised by some, but neither was it the catastrophe that broke up the UK threatened by others. Meh

The nation is being brought back together again through a shared dislike for the current government.

Agree that the last thing we need to is revisit the national trauma of Brexit.

My Remoaner friends - some of them driven half crazy about it, at one point, to the point of homicidal anger- are now largely quiet. They shrug. It's done. And as it turns out it isn't quite as bad as they feared, tho it is still definitely bad

It's now filed under: really regrettable, but oh well, like a bad relationship that is now years in the past, but you get over things

I'm nearly there but proper closure will require a cathartic series of Portillo moments at the election next year.

The EU swinging hard right has given quite a few of my smarter Remainer friends (who are mainly on the left) additional pause for thought

I find that impossible to believe.

SandyRentool

Just call me the daft bugger who has just responded to a comment on the last thread!

So...

Last!

DecrepiterJohnL

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

Because they’re in custody already, having being found guilty at a previous hearing of a serious offence and remanded in custody. The proposed change is so that the convicted criminal is no longer allowed to avoid the victims at the sentencing hearing.

The families of Lucy Letby’s victims were there every day for months, and were denied the right to address her in court after her conviction.

That situation, very narrowly, is what the government seeks to change. It’s not about your average scrote being dragged to the magistrates.

Do victims' families get to address newly convicted prisoners?

SandyRentool

Anabobazina said:

Fairliered said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

Definitely noticed a huge decline in people wearing them and indeed people selling them. It does appear that poppy fascism may have backfired: there was a period not too long ago where newsreaders/poilticians/anyone on the telly were lambasted by an angry twitter mob if their failed to wear a poppy (which is easily done by accident – the sodding things just fall off).

Only a very small proportion of people wear them. It has been so for a long time. Only colleagues at work wearing them are:

1. Ex-RAF
2 Father ex-military, brother in military.

That's out of a couple of hundred.

Anabobazina

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

Yes, I understand all that. But what exactly can the state do to force anyone to attend? See my post above.

Are you serious?

You would be in contempt of court and the judge/magistrate would issue a warrant for your arrest. Once arrested the police would then ensure that you attended court. It's not difficult.

Okay, fine. So everyone who fails to attend court when summoned is in contempt and will be arrested and duly frogmarched to court by a press gang of cops at a later date? Given my experience of low-level criminals, I'm not sure it's going to be quite as straightforward as you imply.

Well, again, as others have said, this is about people in custody already who refuse to go to sentencing hearings. So there are a whole bunch of other issues with that.

In principle people are already compelled to attend the courts, and to the extent that they fail to do so it's because the criminal justice system is underfunded. But if the system believes it is important enough to get you there then they will, to the extent of pursuing extradition if you've fled abroad, for example.

Again, I think this is a bizarre argument for you to make.

If they think it important enough. Actually, a google says it's only in cases where the maximum penalty is life. So for the vast majority of cases, it won't make any difference and the law is unchanged? Not the way it's been publicised, if so.

Sandpit

Highest partnership for 8th or lower wicket, in ODI history!

Leon

Anabobazina said:

Fairliered said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

Definitely noticed a huge decline in people wearing them and indeed people selling them. It does appear that poppy fascism may have backfired: there was a period not too long ago where newsreaders/poilticians/anyone on the telly were lambasted by an angry twitter mob if their failed to wear a poppy (which is easily done by accident – the sodding things just fall off).

I actually stopped wearing poppies because they became popular - and then obligatory

I used to wear one as a student in UCL in the 80s because it really wound up the lefties

Now that poppies are out of fashion again, I shall wear them again. Win win

Carnyx

Anabobazina said:

Fairliered said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

Definitely noticed a huge decline in people wearing them and indeed people selling them. It does appear that poppy fascism may have backfired: there was a period not too long ago where newsreaders/poilticians/anyone on the telly were lambasted by an angry twitter mob if their failed to wear a poppy (which is easily done by accident – the sodding things just fall off).

I don't suppose it's because of the Palestonian flag colours! Sure, there's all that right wing Poppy or Traitor business, which has soured a lot of people. But also it might be a more practical issue. The marketing is necessarily heavily linked to the Great War and to some extent WW2 by the very concept of the poppies of Flanders fields, the RAF BBMF Lancaster bombing the Mall with poppies, etc. 'Haig Fund' was on every poppy until quite recently. And when most of your customers have died off, it doesn't sound as if the fund is in much need. Of course, that's only the superficial image, and the fund also helps more recent services people, and that's important. But is their image sufficient?

Sandpit

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

Then they would be committing a further crime. It is already the case that for quite a lot of crimes bail conditions include not leaving the country.

The point is that currently you can refuse to appear in court. The idea is to change that right. I don't see a problem with that to be honest. If you are found guilty of a crime then facing sentencing and being seen in court seems reasonable to me.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me too. I am simply asking about the mechanics of it. Let's say I nick a bottle of Buckfast from a shop. I get caught and summoned to the Magistrates Court. I decline to attend. What exactly can the state do to make me attend?

Nothing. This isn’t about that, this is about someone already in custody, having being found guilty by the jury, being forced to listen to their victims make their statements to the court.

Really? The way it has been publicised is that people will be forced to appear in the dock. Is that not accurate then?

If it is accurate, it's a good idea in theory. But how will the state force them?

Because they’re in custody already, having being found guilty at a previous hearing of a serious offence and remanded in custody. The proposed change is so that the convicted criminal is no longer allowed to avoid the victims at the sentencing hearing.

The families of Lucy Letby’s victims were there every day for months, and were denied the right to address her in court after her conviction.

That situation, very narrowly, is what the government seeks to change. It’s not about your average scrote being dragged to the magistrates.

Do victims' families get to address newly convicted prisoners?

Yes, known as victim impact statements.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/21/lucy-letby-has-destroyed-our-lives-the-family-victim-statements

Northern_Al

Sandpit said:

Highest partnership for 8th or lower wicket, in ODI history!

And the most unbalanced? Cummins 11 out of 154, currently.

numbertwelve

The problem with the sentencing stuff is you can’t deny someone total agency (unless you want to go all Clockwork Orange on someone. Which right minded people don’t.).

If you drag someone to court you can’t force them to listen. If you play the sentencing remarks into their cell (isn’t this actually a better option than trying to get some poor officer to have to try and drag them into court?!) then you can’t stop them putting their hands over their ears, or what have you.

And how many cases in all the criminal justice system does this actually affect? I get that the victim or sadly the victims families in these cases want justice to be seen to be done; and I can’t even imagine what they have to go through in the court process. But is this even a wide practice from convicted people?

Leon

BREAKING: 🇮🇱 IDF fighter jets are flying over parts of Beirut at low altitudes

https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/1721925383891845521?s=20

TOPPING

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

Fairliered said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

Definitely noticed a huge decline in people wearing them and indeed people selling them. It does appear that poppy fascism may have backfired: there was a period not too long ago where newsreaders/poilticians/anyone on the telly were lambasted by an angry twitter mob if their failed to wear a poppy (which is easily done by accident – the sodding things just fall off).

I actually stopped wearing poppies because they became popular - and then obligatory

I used to wear one as a student in UCL in the 80s because it really wound up the lefties

Now that poppies are out of fashion again, I shall wear them again. Win win

No I think you would be at the tail end of, and therefore likely to be counted as one of the old gits who wear them performatively. You need to wait a year or two before you can wear them as a new, original take on remembrance day.

LostPassword

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

LostPassword said:

Anabobazina said:

Sandpit said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

This is as a result of the Lucy Letby case, where she refused to attend the sentencing hearing that included the families of the victims reading statements, and it was discovered that she couldn’t be compelled to turn up and listen, choosing to remain in her cell at the courthouse awaiting her sentence. The families were not happy that she was a no-show, they wanted to be able to face her before she was sent down.

Yes, I understand all that. But what exactly can the state do to force anyone to attend? See my post above.

Are you serious?

You would be in contempt of court and the judge/magistrate would issue a warrant for your arrest. Once arrested the police would then ensure that you attended court. It's not difficult.

Okay, fine. So everyone who fails to attend court when summoned is in contempt and will be arrested and duly frogmarched to court by a press gang of cops at a later date? Given my experience of low-level criminals, I'm not sure it's going to be quite as straightforward as you imply.

Well, again, as others have said, this is about people in custody already who refuse to go to sentencing hearings. So there are a whole bunch of other issues with that.

In principle people are already compelled to attend the courts, and to the extent that they fail to do so it's because the criminal justice system is underfunded. But if the system believes it is important enough to get you there then they will, to the extent of pursuing extradition if you've fled abroad, for example.

Again, I think this is a bizarre argument for you to make.

If they think it important enough. Actually, a google says it's only in cases where the maximum penalty is life. So for the vast majority of cases, it won't make any difference and the law is unchanged? Not the way it's been publicised, if so.

Only in cases where the Daily Mail will kick up a fuss, yes.

Absolute waste of time legislation from a government that is simply marking time until their election defeat.

Northern_Al

numbertwelve said:

The problem with the sentencing stuff is you can’t deny someone total agency (unless you want to go all Clockwork Orange on someone. Which right minded people don’t.).

If you drag someone to court you can’t force them to listen. If you play the sentencing remarks into their cell (isn’t this actually a better option than trying to get some poor officer to have to try and drag them into court?!) then you can’t stop them putting their hands over their ears, or what have you.

And how many cases in all the criminal justice system does this actually affect?

Hardly any. It's telling that this one little irrelevance has provoked the most debate on here. Rather suggests that the rest of today's legislative programme announcements are pretty thin gruel.

Leon

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

Anabobazina said:

Fairliered said:

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

TOPPING said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

Just caught up on the gist of the speech. Wow. Pedicabs, vaping and forcing criminals to attend sentencing. Parish pump stuff. So parochial; embarrassing for country that aspires to be a global leader.

Purely from a strategic point of view, we're approaching an election, and the government have the initiative by default - they're squandering it, and Sunak continues to be really, really bad at politics. There's no vision, no answers to the big questions. Just performative nibbling around the edges.

Can someone explain to me how one can force someone to attend the dock? What happens if they just leave the country?

No idea but if it's for sentencing then they are about to force that person to do a stretch in HMP so forcing is perhaps not the challenge you think it is.

Meanwhile - it is your fault that the nation is largely poppyless because no one carries cash any more. Proud of yourself?

Probably a reaction to compulsory poppy fascism.

Definitely noticed a huge decline in people wearing them and indeed people selling them. It does appear that poppy fascism may have backfired: there was a period not too long ago where newsreaders/poilticians/anyone on the telly were lambasted by an angry twitter mob if their failed to wear a poppy (which is easily done by accident – the sodding things just fall off).

I actually stopped wearing poppies because they became popular - and then obligatory

I used to wear one as a student in UCL in the 80s because it really wound up the lefties

Now that poppies are out of fashion again, I shall wear them again. Win win

No I think you would be at the tail end of, and therefore likely to be counted as one of the old gits who wear them performatively. You need to wait a year or two before you can wear them as a new, original take on remembrance day.

Oh for sure. Not this year. Next, probs

Nigelb

Maxwell's making 12 runs an over, and Cummins none.
Should just about get them there.

kinabalu

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

felix said:

The polls reflect much disillusionment with the current government overlaid with a marked lack of enthusiasm for the next one.

I wonder whether the lack of enthusiasm for the next government is as much just a meme as anything grounded in fact. Approval ratings for Labour and SKS are OK, across most aspects of government. Labour polling is pretty strong.

Is the seeming lack of enthusiasm a victim of rose tinted nostalgia about the Blair years? In my lifetime there have been only 3 proper changes of government: Callaghan to Thatcher in 1979, Major to Blair in 1997 and Brown to Cameron in 2010. There was by all accounts no great enthusiasm in 1979. In 1997 there was certainly a sense of a refreshing change on the horizon but the reporting at the time was, just like now, dominated by disappointment with the tired and fractious Tory government on its way out. Blair remained a bit unknown and unproven. And in 2010 the lack of enthusiasm for the alternative was such that the Lib Dems were polling in the mid to high 20s during the election campaign.

So I certainly don't think the public is unusually cool towards Starmer's Labour. They seem about as enthused as they ever get, which is not much. I'd say the same of business sentiment too.

I think there was a lot of enthusiasm in 1997. I think a lot of it was a product of how disappointing the Labour defeat in 1992 had been. After the poll tax and seeing off Thatcher, a lot of lectures expected to win in 1992, and losing was crushing. So the relief in 1997 generated a lot of enthusiasm.

This doesn't apply this time round because Corbyn's defeat in 2019 wasn't a surprise. And I think there's also a lot less enthusiasm just because - after Brexit, Covid, Boris, Truss and the decline in living standards - Britain is feeling a bit exhausted. You might think that some Blair-style optimism would be helpful in the circumstances, but I think it would come across as detached from reality.

So, no enthusiasm. The best Starmer can hope for is a grim determination to get a job that needs doing done, and done properly.

Yep, this is a time for a Starmer not a Blair. As for 'no enthusiasm' that's possibly a sign of the electorate growing up a bit after the childishness of 'Boris' and Brexit. There's a new realism afoot. People no longer have their head in the clouds. They know the next few years are going to be torrid. But there's tremendous enthusiasm for the main point of the next GE, out with the Tories and in with something materially better. And maybe it will feel positively terrific when PM Starmer gets in (despite the modest grounded expectations). All is relative after all.

Pulpstar

A narrow loss isn't bad for Aus here, NZ and Pakistan are considerably behind on RR.