Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
There may be few people who think a Labour win is not in the bag, but Starmer is one of them. (I am another). Whether he likes it or not he is at the mercy of the voters, who are extremely volatile. That volatility which gives him the gigantic lead now is the same as the one which frequently defeats Labour.
He faces a number of huge risks, top of which is a 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' campaign.
Current figures don't remotely add up for any party winning the next election, it's a waiting disaster. He needs to ensure a score draw on this by simply matching Tory plans, give or take the odd few pounds, and then, if he can win, having a plan for 5-10 years that he can sell to the grown ups in the audience.
The other approaches lose him the election. He has enough other ways of losing it. He should have our support.
There is a rumour circulating in some London Conservative WhatsApp groups that Paul Scully has told Susan Hall he will be running for Mayor as an independent. Obviously take with a large amount of salt but we should know pretty shortly if it's the case.
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
On topic, it would of course be amazing to get rid of the disastrously expensive, politically embarassing and often deadly nuisance that is Northern Ireland. They and the Republic deserve each other. I think the Irish government will regret taking on a million discontented and violent citizens and God knows how many terrorist groups, but that'll be their problem. If it does happen, it will be by far the biggest benefit yet to come from leaving the EU.
Until they gain Irish citizenship, and so can live & work & claim in the UK...
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
Well, they all look at what happened to Theresa May. Her policy was very sensible but it cost her her majority from those who prioritise their inheritance over the obligations of tax payers to pick up the tab.
No it did not. Theresa May (almost) lost because Lynton Crosby ran a lousy campaign and then blamed Nick & Fiona's social care policy. It had already been ditched which would surely have been known by anyone voting on that basis.
The other factor was the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the election campaign and Theresa May saying her axing of 10,000 coppers made no difference.
When I posted about the BBC's Dawn Queva yesterday and drew attention to her questionable views on whites and Jews some of the reaction was that it was the latest cancellation outrage blah blah blah. I accept it was merely an anecdote.
However Andrew Neil posted about it earlier today and claims the response he's had from previous colleagues at the BBC is that it is 'grim' and frightening to be a Jew at the BBC right now. At the very least that ought to be raising eyebrows.
You were right to raise it. It is utterly appalling. There is a real serious problem in terms of antisemitism - even of the kind that's pretty indistinguishable from Nazism - being seen as acceptable in certain circles and in certain causes' name. The fact that some dismissed it (as some so often did with the appalling stuff in the Corbyn years) shows the problem.
There are a limited number of people on the far left with absolutely abhorrent, crackers views - enough to be worrying but not a majority. But a far larger number, including prominent figures and institutions, that greet said views with a shrug or even excuse and defend it until it becomes absolutely impossible to, because it's awkward to their politics to admit that a significant number on their 'side' are motivated by an age-old hatred and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Rather than justice and concern for Palestinians.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
Are unions just more susceptible to this sort of crankery or something? I've never understood why they can appear to be far more passionate about such things than their core purpose.
A pretty innocuous piece where he says he prefers Trump's policies to the Dems (esp on immigration and the border and woke) but cannot support him on account of the risk to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The default position of the sane and decent right in other words. He also predicts Trump will win by landslide in November.
I link it not so much for Sullivan's thoughts but for the BtL response in unHerdland. You'd have thought it would be greeted in a kind of muted and mixed way. A few nods, a few shakes. But no - they're furious (!) because it isn't 100% worshipful of the great leader.
Incredible really. Some of these people can string a sentence, use quite booklearny words, there's probably some uni in their past, maybe a good one, but in essence they're away with the fairies. You can also sense the nastiness bubbling under. I see it a lot (with the online right) yet am still taken aback by it.
It's quite revealing that one of the pieces of legislation currently stuck in Congress are bipartisan proposals for stronger border restrictions, supported by President Biden.
MAGA-Republicans are dishonest enough that they attach more importance to political hits on Biden, plus possible benefits for Mr Chump later, that they are more important than their precious 'restrict the border' issue.
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
XL bullies should be removed and destroyed . Sorry for the owners but they shouldn’t have bought the dogs in the first place . The current legislation isn’t strong enough and the type who generally own them are hardly pillars of society .
Off-topic personal. It was nice to be out for the first bike ride for some time yesterday - met up with an old friend for a visit to the cafe at RHS Bridgwater and a survey of some local cycling/wheeling infrastructure, including the now famous 4-ply chicanes at https://what3words.com/jumpy.wheels.spices, and a few miles on the Bee Network.
RHS prices seem to be at nearly NT levels, and I recommend the "small English breakfast", but didn't buy any plants.
A row of 60 Sheffield stands is more than I have seen before, but they and Salford need to work on their footpath wheelchair accessibility - there are miles and miles of almost brand new suburban paths in the area with horrible smaller than 5mm loose gravel over bound base slippery surfaces. No issue if it is somewhere deep in the lakes going up a mountain, but this is in Greater Manchester, and designed to be useable.
Piccie below is of a repurposed railway track from further in the past, slightly enhanced for colour/sharpness - you can see where the packed ground from the former track bed contrasts with the more settled recent infill in the sleeper-removed impressions. Done too quickly & too cheaply unfortunately. Cycling along that is like a mild mile long cattle-grid - d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d.
I also got got to see my first Guided Busway, which was interesting. It is what they have done with the former railway path - called the Tyldesley Loopline - where it goes across the Local Authority boundary.
It's interesting that there seem to be are fewer obstacles used to catch cars, compared to the Huntington to Cambridge Guided Busway.
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
Well, they all look at what happened to Theresa May. Her policy was very sensible but it cost her her majority from those who prioritise their inheritance over the obligations of tax payers to pick up the tab.
No it did not. Theresa May (almost) lost because Lynton Crosby ran a lousy campaign and then blamed Nick & Fiona's social care policy. It had already been ditched which would surely have been known by anyone voting on that basis.
The other factor was the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the election campaign and Theresa May saying her axing of 10,000 coppers made no difference.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
I'm a Scots lawyer, not an English one. In Scotland he might well face a charge of culpable homicide for this.
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
Now now. You’re stereotyping
Tho I must admit a raised eyebrow when I saw “jaywick”
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
NEW: Keir Starmer has ditched his promise to abolish the House of Lords in a first term as he seeks to make the Labour manifesto "bombproof" of Tory attacks
No, you have it the wrong way round. He promised something you *don't* like, then changes his mind to match yourt preferred policies when you complain. And you think that's bad? What does that imply about your preferred policies?
Eh?
Saying "SKS adopts our preferred policies and we think that's bad" is not a great advertisement for one's *own* policies. OK,. SKS changes his mind - but you don't come over as very convinced by your own policies. That's all. It's always seemed a very odd line of argument by the Tories.
I don't think @isam is a Tory. He supports Brexit and Johnson with an ardour that can match Mad Nad, but doesn't seem to like them much otherwise.
Thank you. Fulsome apologies to Isam.
Okay, scrub 'your' and substitute 'Tory'. It remains a general objection to Tory attacks on SKS's apparent inconsistencies that when SKS adopts effectivelyt the Tory position, the Tories are de facto attacking their own position.
I’m naturally Tory-inclined (although as things stand likely to spoil my ballot).
The issue that I have is the country clearly needs radical change. A bit of spending here of there isn’t going to touch the sides.
Starmer should be using the opportunity to build a case for change. As Truss discovered you can’t just surprise people. He’s playing such a conservative approach (heh) that he’s likely to win but without the popular groundswell to shake up the country in the way that needs to be done.
Go out and build the case for planning reform. Argue for welfare reform, whatever you choose (probably a max of 2). I haven’t seen the detail of what Streeting has hinted at for the NHS but that would be a good start.
If Starmer doesn’t meaningfully change the country’s direction it’s going to be another wasted decade
When I posted about the BBC's Dawn Queva yesterday and drew attention to her questionable views on whites and Jews some of the reaction was that it was the latest cancellation outrage blah blah blah. I accept it was merely an anecdote.
However Andrew Neil posted about it earlier today and claims the response he's had from previous colleagues at the BBC is that it is 'grim' and frightening to be a Jew at the BBC right now. At the very least that ought to be raising eyebrows.
You were right to raise it. It is utterly appalling. There is a real serious problem in terms of antisemitism - even of the kind that's pretty indistinguishable from Nazism - being seen as acceptable in certain circles and in certain causes' name. The fact that some dismissed it (as some so often did with the appalling stuff in the Corbyn years) shows the problem.
There are a limited number of people on the far left with absolutely abhorrent, crackers views - enough to be worrying but not a majority. But a far larger number, including prominent figures and institutions, that greet said views with a shrug or even excuse and defend it until it becomes absolutely impossible to, because it's awkward to their politics to admit that a significant number on their 'side' are motivated by an age-old hatred and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Rather than justice and concern for Palestinians.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
Are unions just more susceptible to this sort of crankery or something? I've never understood why they can appear to be far more passionate about such things than their core purpose.
Is it that the sort of people who go for elected office in Unions are generally politically active people, with mostly left-wing views, and that “Palestine” is one of the favourite subjects for these people to talk about?
I was always amazed that Jeremy Corbyn, if allowed to speak for five minutes, would almost always get to the P-word, no matter what the subject was a few minutes earlier.
(Yes most of these marches appear to be mostly Iranian propaganda and a heavy dose of antisemitism. I suspect that Iran and Qatar are funding a number of groups involved.)
A pretty innocuous piece where he says he prefers Trump's policies to the Dems (esp on immigration and the border and woke) but cannot support him on account of the risk to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The default position of the sane and decent right in other words. He also predicts Trump will win by landslide in November.
I link it not so much for Sullivan's thoughts but for the BtL response in unHerdland. You'd have thought it would be greeted in a kind of muted and mixed way. A few nods, a few shakes. But no - they're furious (!) because it isn't 100% worshipful of the great leader.
Incredible really. Some of these people can string a sentence, use quite booklearny words, there's probably some uni in their past, maybe a good one, but in essence they're away with the fairies. You can also sense the nastiness bubbling under. I see it a lot (with the online right) yet am still taken aback by it.
It's quite revealing that one of the pieces of legislation currently stuck in Congress are bipartisan proposals for stronger border restrictions, supported by President Biden.
MAGA-Republicans are dishonest enough that they attach more importance to political hits on Biden, plus possible benefits for Mr Chump later, that they are more important than their precious 'restrict the border' issue.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
Article has a huge error in it ab initio. It confounds devolution and federation.
That is because the difference between the 2 is not very exciting. Both involve 2 layers of government. Both involve a mixture of powers being allocated to each layer. Both involve payments of tax to each by the residents. On one view the changes made in the 2016 Act purporting to give permeance to the Scottish Parliament moved us closer to a federation than a devolved state. It certainly does not undermine the analysis.
The central point remains. A Parliament genuinely focused on independence would have worked to use their considerable powers to make Scotland a more viable independent country. Holyrood has, if anything, moved the dial back on this.
There is a rumour circulating in some London Conservative WhatsApp groups that Paul Scully has told Susan Hall he will be running for Mayor as an independent. Obviously take with a large amount of salt but we should know pretty shortly if it's the case.
Hall’s vote would be slightly lower, he’d lose his deposit and Khan is still re-elected. I’m all for more Tory psychodrama, but it’s not going to have a huge impact, is it?
When I posted about the BBC's Dawn Queva yesterday and drew attention to her questionable views on whites and Jews some of the reaction was that it was the latest cancellation outrage blah blah blah. I accept it was merely an anecdote.
However Andrew Neil posted about it earlier today and claims the response he's had from previous colleagues at the BBC is that it is 'grim' and frightening to be a Jew at the BBC right now. At the very least that ought to be raising eyebrows.
You were right to raise it. It is utterly appalling. There is a real serious problem in terms of antisemitism - even of the kind that's pretty indistinguishable from Nazism - being seen as acceptable in certain circles and in certain causes' name. The fact that some dismissed it (as some so often did with the appalling stuff in the Corbyn years) shows the problem.
There are a limited number of people on the far left with absolutely abhorrent, crackers views - enough to be worrying but not a majority. But a far larger number, including prominent figures and institutions, that greet said views with a shrug or even excuse and defend it until it becomes absolutely impossible to, because it's awkward to their politics to admit that a significant number on their 'side' are motivated by an age-old hatred and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Rather than justice and concern for Palestinians.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
Are unions just more susceptible to this sort of crankery or something? I've never understood why they can appear to be far more passionate about such things than their core purpose.
It's imo basically down to Union Democracy not being fit for purpose. It leaves them vulnerable to control by small, extreme minorities.
A pretty innocuous piece where he says he prefers Trump's policies to the Dems (esp on immigration and the border and woke) but cannot support him on account of the risk to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The default position of the sane and decent right in other words. He also predicts Trump will win by landslide in November.
I link it not so much for Sullivan's thoughts but for the BtL response in unHerdland. You'd have thought it would be greeted in a kind of muted and mixed way. A few nods, a few shakes. But no - they're furious (!) because it isn't 100% worshipful of the great leader.
Incredible really. Some of these people can string a sentence, use quite booklearny words, there's probably some uni in their past, maybe a good one, but in essence they're away with the fairies. You can also sense the nastiness bubbling under. I see it a lot (with the online right) yet am still taken aback by it.
I had heard it reported on here that Unherd was an oasis of sensible, non aligned commentary. Imagine my surprise..
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
A pretty innocuous piece where he says he prefers Trump's policies to the Dems (esp on immigration and the border and woke) but cannot support him on account of the risk to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The default position of the sane and decent right in other words. He also predicts Trump will win by landslide in November.
I link it not so much for Sullivan's thoughts but for the BtL response in unHerdland. You'd have thought it would be greeted in a kind of muted and mixed way. A few nods, a few shakes. But no - they're furious (!) because it isn't 100% worshipful of the great leader.
Incredible really. Some of these people can string a sentence, use quite booklearny words, there's probably some uni in their past, maybe a good one, but in essence they're away with the fairies. You can also sense the nastiness bubbling under. I see it a lot (with the online right) yet am still taken aback by it.
It's quite revealing that one of the pieces of legislation currently stuck in Congress are bipartisan proposals for stronger border restrictions, supported by President Biden.
MAGA-Republicans are dishonest enough that they attach more importance to political hits on Biden, plus possible benefits for Mr Chump later, that they are more important than their precious 'restrict the border' issue.
That's not MAGA; that's mainstream Republicans.
That's a debate around where we draw the boundary between MAGA and mainstream, and perhaps some detail around how the procedures in the House of Representatives are controlled / manipulated.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
But it’s better than nothing. It’s a start
Personally I think the government should simply shoot every XL Bully in the country. Job done
There is a chance that a armed police officer is seriously injured or killed trying to fight one off at some point. Then you'd get mandatory euthanasia.
I’ve seen an XL Bully. They are monstrous
No way I’d go near one unless I had a gun or a machete and even then I’d be bloody nervous
It’s one of the few good swift things Sunak has done. Ban them
They are being shipped to Scotland as Useless is living up to his name as usual.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
David does not let facts get in the way of Tory Hyperbole.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
There may be few people who think a Labour win is not in the bag, but Starmer is one of them. (I am another). Whether he likes it or not he is at the mercy of the voters, who are extremely volatile. That volatility which gives him the gigantic lead now is the same as the one which frequently defeats Labour.
He faces a number of huge risks, top of which is a 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' campaign.
Current figures don't remotely add up for any party winning the next election, it's a waiting disaster. He needs to ensure a score draw on this by simply matching Tory plans, give or take the odd few pounds, and then, if he can win, having a plan for 5-10 years that he can sell to the grown ups in the audience.
The other approaches lose him the election. He has enough other ways of losing it. He should have our support.
This is a 1979 election, not a 1997 election, and Starmer is more like early Thatcher than he is like Blair.
The Thatcher similarity doesn't necessarily bode well for Starmer however. Thatcher was very unpopular in the first couple of years. If it wasn't for a random set of Argentinian generals ...
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
I'm a Scots lawyer, not an English one. In Scotland he might well face a charge of culpable homicide for this.
When I posted about the BBC's Dawn Queva yesterday and drew attention to her questionable views on whites and Jews some of the reaction was that it was the latest cancellation outrage blah blah blah. I accept it was merely an anecdote.
However Andrew Neil posted about it earlier today and claims the response he's had from previous colleagues at the BBC is that it is 'grim' and frightening to be a Jew at the BBC right now. At the very least that ought to be raising eyebrows.
You were right to raise it. It is utterly appalling. There is a real serious problem in terms of antisemitism - even of the kind that's pretty indistinguishable from Nazism - being seen as acceptable in certain circles and in certain causes' name. The fact that some dismissed it (as some so often did with the appalling stuff in the Corbyn years) shows the problem.
There are a limited number of people on the far left with absolutely abhorrent, crackers views - enough to be worrying but not a majority. But a far larger number, including prominent figures and institutions, that greet said views with a shrug or even excuse and defend it until it becomes absolutely impossible to, because it's awkward to their politics to admit that a significant number on their 'side' are motivated by an age-old hatred and antisemitic conspiracy theories. Rather than justice and concern for Palestinians.
I think there's a lot more antisemitism about that is being tacitly accepted than many of us realised. A few spectacular idiots are very bold about it, but they are so bold because the feel comfortable in their own circles, circles apparently large enough that it is not a problem for them generally. If I were jewish I'd be increasingly concerned in this country.
Yes. Though it was why some of us were raising the alarm in the Corbyn years - and in the case of some community groups and scholars of the left, long before that. Defending, excusing, or promoting people with horrific views because they happened to be 'allies' on this totemic issue and associated 'anti-imperialist' ravings.
There's long been a problem of a complete inability (or unwillingness if feeling less charitable) to see or call out antisemitism that uses Israel or 'Zionism' as its justification and the basis for its reversion to the age-old conspiracy theories handed on from medieval Europe and the Middle East to the Nazis and then the Soviets, and back again.
I think what has shocked is the sheer lack of empathy and willingness to try and deny 7th October. Plus the behaviour of institutions which have been clueless in the face of hate and conspiracism coming from this direction as their entire framework for dealing with extremism looks the other way towards the right. That and some of the rank stupidity involved - which has been offensive and worrying of and in itself. Some of the most dreadful scenes have been in the US though.
Something went very wrong a while ago, but 7 October exposed it for all to see in the most terrible way possible.
I've just seen that the newly elected Head of my Union PCS* chose to speak today at the 'pro Palestine' rally. I shall be resigning my membership with immediate effect. These rallies seem nothing more than Iranian propaganda, Hamas adoration, antisemitic hate plus a large dollop of stupidity.
*That's the main Union for civil servants.
Are unions just more susceptible to this sort of crankery or something? I've never understood why they can appear to be far more passionate about such things than their core purpose.
It's imo basically down to Union Democracy not being fit for purpose. It leaves them vulnerable to control by small, extreme minorities.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
Not only Quebec. Every Province of Canada has way more autonomy.
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
There may be few people who think a Labour win is not in the bag, but Starmer is one of them. (I am another). Whether he likes it or not he is at the mercy of the voters, who are extremely volatile. That volatility which gives him the gigantic lead now is the same as the one which frequently defeats Labour.
He faces a number of huge risks, top of which is a 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' campaign.
Current figures don't remotely add up for any party winning the next election, it's a waiting disaster. He needs to ensure a score draw on this by simply matching Tory plans, give or take the odd few pounds, and then, if he can win, having a plan for 5-10 years that he can sell to the grown ups in the audience.
The other approaches lose him the election. He has enough other ways of losing it. He should have our support.
This is a 1979 election, not a 1997 election, and Starmer is more like early Thatcher than he is like Blair.
The Thatcher similarity doesn't necessarily bode well for Starmer however. Thatcher was very unpopular in the first couple of years. If it wasn't for a random set of Argentinian generals ...
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
Well, they all look at what happened to Theresa May. Her policy was very sensible but it cost her her majority from those who prioritise their inheritance over the obligations of tax payers to pick up the tab.
No it did not. Theresa May (almost) lost because Lynton Crosby ran a lousy campaign and then blamed Nick & Fiona's social care policy. It had already been ditched which would surely have been known by anyone voting on that basis.
The other factor was the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the election campaign and Theresa May saying her axing of 10,000 coppers made no difference.
Yes it did. I canvassed in Ilford North after the dementia tax was included in the manifesto and it was the worst week of canvassing I have had in terms of mood change.
Hence Boris announced his £86k cap on liability for social care costs which did win him a majority in 2019, albeit it has been kicked into the long grass
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
Well, they all look at what happened to Theresa May. Her policy was very sensible but it cost her her majority from those who prioritise their inheritance over the obligations of tax payers to pick up the tab.
No it did not. Theresa May (almost) lost because Lynton Crosby ran a lousy campaign and then blamed Nick & Fiona's social care policy. It had already been ditched which would surely have been known by anyone voting on that basis.
The other factor was the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the election campaign and Theresa May saying her axing of 10,000 coppers made no difference.
Also the ditching was a total mess.
"Nothing has changed" etc etc.
Psychotically repeating "Strong and Stable" was annoying enough in itself. Doubly so when you've ditched a major policy and failed to prevent two terrorist acts.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
I'm a Scots lawyer, not an English one. In Scotland he might well face a charge of culpable homicide for this.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
The logical solution in the event of reunification would be for sovereignty to be transferred but Stormont to be kept much as it is - possibly with the two most overwhelmingly Nationalist counties transferred to Dublin.
But we’re talking Northern Ireland. Logic has never featured much in political discussions there.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
He’s the first one since the laws were passed, I think?
A judge might feel the need to set a tough precedent. Certainly the government will(for good or ill) threatening an appeal if the maximum is not enforced in the event of a conviction. (Unless there were mitigating circumstances, e.g. the victim was attacking the dogs with a cattle prod, but that seems unlikely.)
The House Republican leadership has already decided. They're against aid to Ukraine and will string everyone else along for as long as possible before openly admitting it.
In Europe everyone is worried about what happens next year when Trump takes over and stops US support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have turned off US funding already. The crisis has already arrived.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
It is not entirely clear from the Mail's report but if the dogs lived in the house the dead woman was visiting, then the situation is murkier than if the dogs were off their leads outside and attacked her, or if the dogs were set on her. Ironically, from the dogs' point of view they may have been protecting the child from this complete stranger who had broken into their home to kidnap him.
The House Republican leadership has already decided. They're against aid to Ukraine and will string everyone else along for as long as possible before openly admitting it.
In Europe everyone is worried about what happens next year when Trump takes over and stops US support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have turned off US funding already. The crisis has already arrived.
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
In such a scenario most likely County Antrim, East Londonderry and the most Unionist parts of Armagh and Down would declare UDI.
Though as you state for now most voters in NI want to stay in the UK
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
So we are now not saying the article but going elsewhere? I feel the goalposts being dragged as we write.
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
He’s the first one since the laws were passed, I think?
A judge might feel the need to set a tough precedent. Certainly the government will(for good or ill) threatening an appeal if the maximum is not enforced in the event of a conviction. (Unless there were mitigating circumstances, e.g. the victim was attacking the dogs with a cattle prod, but that seems unlikely.)
The poor old granny that died had, also, complained about the dogs and the potential danger of them
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
There are also some practical issues. How do vets get these huge vicious dogs under general anasthetic to do the job? They'll need tranquiliser guns.
I have two school friends who are vets. They are both very active on Instagram and Facebook rehoming XL Bullies, describing them as sweet, misunderstood etc.
All dogs are sweet and misunderstood sometimes, until they have a turn and eat your granny.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
It is not entirely clear from the Mail's report but if the dogs lived in the house the dead woman was visiting, then the situation is murkier than if the dogs were off their leads outside and attacked her, or if the dogs were set on her. Ironically, from the dogs' point of view they may have been protecting the child from this complete stranger who had broken into their home to kidnap him.
lol. I don’t think that’s going to be seen as much mitigation
“Oh my illegal and dangerous dogs which I illegally refuse to get neutered and registered took against this grandmother visiting her grandson because they saw her as a threat so they ate her face off”
A pretty innocuous piece where he says he prefers Trump's policies to the Dems (esp on immigration and the border and woke) but cannot support him on account of the risk to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The default position of the sane and decent right in other words. He also predicts Trump will win by landslide in November.
I link it not so much for Sullivan's thoughts but for the BtL response in unHerdland. You'd have thought it would be greeted in a kind of muted and mixed way. A few nods, a few shakes. But no - they're furious (!) because it isn't 100% worshipful of the great leader.
Incredible really. Some of these people can string a sentence, use quite booklearny words, there's probably some uni in their past, maybe a good one, but in essence they're away with the fairies. You can also sense the nastiness bubbling under. I see it a lot (with the online right) yet am still taken aback by it.
I had heard it reported on here that Unherd was an oasis of sensible, non aligned commentary. Imagine my surprise..
I think it's for those who find Spiked too left-wing and Woke
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
The identity question is probably a better indicator than hypothetical Border Poll surveys that seem very erratic. The trend is towards an Irish identity, but still behind British identity. The swing vote is those with only a Northern Irish identity, 20% of the electorate. That is the constituency unionists and republicans need to pitch to with their visions of what is best for Northern Ireland.
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
There are discussions happening. There was a conference on it. Various bits in the papers and contributions by politicians. Changing the flag and national anthem have been suggested, though both ideas are very unpopular in the Republic
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
The identity question is probably a better indicator than hypothetical Border Poll surveys that seem very erratic. The trend is towards an Irish identity, but still behind British identity. The swing vote is those with only a Northern Irish identity, 20% of the electorate. That is the constituency unionists and republicans need to pitch to with their visions of what is best for Northern Ireland.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
So we are now not saying the article but going elsewhere? I feel the goalposts being dragged as we write.
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
Isn’ t the Basque Country extremely autonomous? On a par with Scotland perhaps?
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
So we are now not saying the article but going elsewhere? I feel the goalposts being dragged as we write.
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
Isn’ t the Basque Country extremely autonomous? On a par with Scotland perhaps?
Again, referring to the BBC article:
"Devolution is different in different regions of Spain, which is divided into 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities. More devolved areas like the Basque Country have responsibility for all taxes except import duties and VAT. The regions control large percentages of expenditure and revenues, although still less than Holyrood will receive under the Smith recommendations."
It sounds like it might be although the comment at the end is interesting.
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
The Lazy Stereotype Party.
Jaywick (& West Clacton) Ward has two Independent councillors, out of two. One of them is Vice-Chair of Tendring Council. Don’t know what the votes were.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
So we are now not saying the article but going elsewhere? I feel the goalposts being dragged as we write.
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
Isn’ t the Basque Country extremely autonomous? On a par with Scotland perhaps?
Again, referring to the BBC article:
"Devolution is different in different regions of Spain, which is divided into 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities. More devolved areas like the Basque Country have responsibility for all taxes except import duties and VAT. The regions control large percentages of expenditure and revenues, although still less than Holyrood will receive under the Smith recommendations."
It sounds like it might be although the comment at the end is interesting.
Certainly when you go there the Basque Country “feels” way more different and independent than Scotland does in the UK. They look different - genetically they are distinct - they have a unique non-Spanish history - and of course their brilliantly weird language, dating back 12,000 years!
There are also some interesting parallels with Scotland. Like the Scots, the Basques were never entirely conquered by the Romans
The Basque Country is fab, if anyone is thinking of going. Wistfully pretty on the French side and more grandiose and gritty on the Spanish side. Mad keen on rugby. Beautiful mountains. Amazing food
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
The Lazy Stereotype Party.
Jaywick (& West Clacton) Ward has two Independent councillors, out of two. One of them is Vice-Chair of Tendring Council. Don’t know what the votes were.
It’s a very strange place, though.
Never been and I’m unlikely ever to go. From what I read of it it seems a little like Withernsea.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
So we are now not saying the article but going elsewhere? I feel the goalposts being dragged as we write.
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
Isn’ t the Basque Country extremely autonomous? On a par with Scotland perhaps?
Again, referring to the BBC article:
"Devolution is different in different regions of Spain, which is divided into 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities. More devolved areas like the Basque Country have responsibility for all taxes except import duties and VAT. The regions control large percentages of expenditure and revenues, although still less than Holyrood will receive under the Smith recommendations."
It sounds like it might be although the comment at the end is interesting.
Certainly when you go there the Basque Country “feels” way more different and independent than Scotland does in the UK. They look different - genetically they are distinct - they have a unique non-Spanish history - and of course their brilliantly weird language, dating back 12,000 years!
There are also some interesting parallels with Scotland. Like the Scots, the Basques were never entirely conquered by the Romans
There are theories that Cornwall, Ireland, Wales and at least part of Scotland were settled after the last Ice Age by people making their way up the Biscay coast from NW Spain
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
The identity question is probably a better indicator than hypothetical Border Poll surveys that seem very erratic. The trend is towards an Irish identity, but still behind British identity. The swing vote is those with only a Northern Irish identity, 20% of the electorate. That is the constituency unionists and republicans need to pitch to with their visions of what is best for Northern Ireland.
Border poll surveys are not “erratic”. You just don’t like them. They are notably consistent
The next two lines in that list are 27% Yes / 50% No and 41% Yes / 50% No. In the same month. Then several polls with Yes just a couple of points less than No.
I do think there's a trend in the noise. Before the Brexit referendum all polls were overwhelmingly for the Union; after the referendum coming closer to parity; recently falling back somewhat. I wouldn't say that's the final position. I think the identity question is a better long term indicator. The Union is stills ahead but the trend is away from it.
If George Galloway beaks through in Rochdale Tory MPs are going to push Rishi Sunak to hold a "Gaza Election" > Mail On Sunday >
What the suffering fuck is a "Gaza Election"?
Sadly, you have to read the Mail to find out...
And you have to pay for the Mail to find out because Dan Hodges sits behind the Mail's partial paywall.
Leon might be better informed as to the rationale but half the Mail is paywalled and the other half is free. I do not know if any other publication has the same model which is reminiscent of so called freemium software apps that give basic functionality for free but charge for advanced features. Dan Hodges is apparently an advanced feature.
So is Mr Johnson. You now have to pay for his lucubrations.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
On the basis of making the punishment fit the crime maybe he could enjoy spending some time alone with eight other XL bullies (that aren't his) in a secure room.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Also their own doggie is a softie who wouldn't hurt a fly...
We've all heard that buĺlshit from so many dog owners.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
On the basis of making the punishment fit the crime maybe he could enjoy spending some time alone with eight other XL bullies (that aren't his) in a secure room.
An alternative take on Sinn Fein's ascent to FM is that it normalises governance in Northern Ireland and, so far as Nationalist opinion is concerned, makes the Ulster entity easier to accept. That's the whole point of power-sharing and the polls seem to reflect that with a substantial lead for continuing in the union despite the parity in the size of the communities (according to a report I saw in The Guardian - 50/30 as I recall)..
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
The identity question is probably a better indicator than hypothetical Border Poll surveys that seem very erratic. The trend is towards an Irish identity, but still behind British identity. The swing vote is those with only a Northern Irish identity, 20% of the electorate. That is the constituency unionists and republicans need to pitch to with their visions of what is best for Northern Ireland.
Border poll surveys are not “erratic”. You just don’t like them. They are notably consistent
The next two lines in that list are 27% Yes / 50% No and 41% Yes / 50% No. In the same month. Then several polls with Yes just a couple of points less than No.
I do think there's a trend in the noise. Before the Brexit referendum all polls were overwhelmingly for the Union; after the referendum coming closer to parity; recently falling back somewhat. I wouldn't say that's the final position. I think the identity question is a better long term indicator. The Union is stills ahead but the trend is away from it.
No, the trend is for a solid NO lead and that has been the case since the first poll in 2003. The average NO lead has narrowed - but the shrinking has been relatively small about 5 or 10 points. It may now be expanding again - latest polls show a chunky 21 point lead for NO
The only real volatility came during the Brexit years. That’s when YES - just once - overtook NO. The polls are now reverting to type
You just want Britain to break up because you want some revenge on the Brexit Britain that betrayed you. Its not going to happen - not in Northern Ireland anyway
For a start, no one there wants to risk the troubles returning, and tearing up the UK would do that. A fudge will always be found that avoids this trauma
The rapprochement between Labour and capitalism was on lavish display last Thursday when a throng of business bosses crowded into an executive suite at the Oval cricket ground in south London for an audience with the Labour leader and Rachel Reeves.
There’s clearly an audience among companies and investors for the message that they would be better off with Labour after the havoc inflicted by Brexit, the “fuck business” posture of Boris Johnson, the financial chaos unleashed by Liz Truss and Kamikaze Kwarteng, and Rishi Sunak’s screeching U-turns over net zero and high-speed rail. One senior Tory involved in his party’s effort to rebuild broken bridges with business reports that whenever he visits the chief executive of a FTSE 100 company he finds that “Rachel Reeves has got there before me”.
This romance invites the question: who is seducing whom?
Like bees to a honeypot, money swarms in the direction of power. Business chiefs almost universally expect that it will soon be Labour ministers who are deciding how they are regulated and how much they are taxed. That’s why they want to rub shoulders with the next government.
Scratch below the surface of this apparent romance between Labour and business and you won’t find true love. It’s more a marriage of convenience.
A Labour government will be in power to serve the whole country, not just one sectional interest, however important. Collaboration in the pursuit of common goals makes sense. Cosiness would be a mistake. Labour should be guided by Goldilocks when setting the temperature of its relationship with business. Not too cold, but not too hot either.
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
The Lazy Stereotype Party.
Jaywick (& West Clacton) Ward has two Independent councillors, out of two. One of them is Vice-Chair of Tendring Council. Don’t know what the votes were.
It’s a very strange place, though.
Never been and I’m unlikely ever to go. From what I read of it it seems a little like Withernsea.
A lot of people live in mobile homes on streets with no pavement with roads that are privately owned and therefore the worst I have ever seen
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
The Lazy Stereotype Party.
Jaywick (& West Clacton) Ward has two Independent councillors, out of two. One of them is Vice-Chair of Tendring Council. Don’t know what the votes were.
It’s a very strange place, though.
Never been and I’m unlikely ever to go. From what I read of it it seems a little like Withernsea.
A lot of people live in mobile homes on streets with no pavement with roads that are privately owned and therefore the worst I have ever seen
They were terrible, but I just looked on Streetview and they've actually been paved now, so they no longer look 80-year old airfield concrete taxiways. But it still looks really grim: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o2ejWPPxtQ378XRCA
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
It is not entirely clear from the Mail's report but if the dogs lived in the house the dead woman was visiting, then the situation is murkier than if the dogs were off their leads outside and attacked her, or if the dogs were set on her. Ironically, from the dogs' point of view they may have been protecting the child from this complete stranger who had broken into their home to kidnap him.
As I understand it, if your dogs kill someone, you are liable.
Animals, in law, have no mural agency. So what they may have thought is irrelevant.
Multiple illegal dogs Not neutered Not registered Probable attitude towards the law of dogs (expressed) - probably evidence of ignoring the potential problem will appear
Unless he has spotless record and the dogs had no previous issues, the probability is that that there will be more aggravating than mitigating circumstances. So higher sentence than 8 years
Unless he’s mad, he should plead guilty. Lowers the sentence a bit.
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
The Lazy Stereotype Party.
Jaywick (& West Clacton) Ward has two Independent councillors, out of two. One of them is Vice-Chair of Tendring Council. Don’t know what the votes were.
It’s a very strange place, though.
Never been and I’m unlikely ever to go. From what I read of it it seems a little like Withernsea.
A lot of people live in mobile homes on streets with no pavement with roads that are privately owned and therefore the worst I have ever seen
They were terrible, but I just looked on Streetview and they've actually been paved now, so they no longer look 80-year old airfield concrete taxiways. But it still looks really grim: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o2ejWPPxtQ378XRCA
So they have. I wonder who paid?
Horrific place. It’s like a scene from a British version of the first True Detective series
The rapprochement between Labour and capitalism was on lavish display last Thursday when a throng of business bosses crowded into an executive suite at the Oval cricket ground in south London for an audience with the Labour leader and Rachel Reeves.
There’s clearly an audience among companies and investors for the message that they would be better off with Labour after the havoc inflicted by Brexit, the “fuck business” posture of Boris Johnson, the financial chaos unleashed by Liz Truss and Kamikaze Kwarteng, and Rishi Sunak’s screeching U-turns over net zero and high-speed rail. One senior Tory involved in his party’s effort to rebuild broken bridges with business reports that whenever he visits the chief executive of a FTSE 100 company he finds that “Rachel Reeves has got there before me”.
This romance invites the question: who is seducing whom?
Like bees to a honeypot, money swarms in the direction of power. Business chiefs almost universally expect that it will soon be Labour ministers who are deciding how they are regulated and how much they are taxed. That’s why they want to rub shoulders with the next government.
Scratch below the surface of this apparent romance between Labour and business and you won’t find true love. It’s more a marriage of convenience.
A Labour government will be in power to serve the whole country, not just one sectional interest, however important. Collaboration in the pursuit of common goals makes sense. Cosiness would be a mistake. Labour should be guided by Goldilocks when setting the temperature of its relationship with business. Not too cold, but not too hot either.
Shutting out the Tories from a previously critical means of financial support sounds like very good tactics to me. In a way I would be happier if I did think that Starmer had a plan that he is not sharing. The fear is that the new government will be all pragmatism and no delivery...
Still, better than the current bunch of arseholes anyway.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
It is not entirely clear from the Mail's report but if the dogs lived in the house the dead woman was visiting, then the situation is murkier than if the dogs were off their leads outside and attacked her, or if the dogs were set on her. Ironically, from the dogs' point of view they may have been protecting the child from this complete stranger who had broken into their home to kidnap him.
As I understand it, if your dogs kill someone, you are liable.
Animals, in law, have no mural agency. So what they may have thought is irrelevant.
Multiple illegal dogs Not neutered Not registered Probable attitude towards the law of dogs (expressed) - probably evidence of ignoring the potential problem will appear
Unless he has spotless record and the dogs had no previous issues, the probability is that that there will be more aggravating than mitigating circumstances. So higher sentence than 8 years
Unless he’s mad, he should plead guilty. Lowers the sentence a bit.
I reckon he’ll be lucky to get 8 years.
Reading that, I’d say you’re right. Plus this dead woman had complained about the danger of the breed and the temperament of these particular dogs - no doubt because her small grandson lived next door and was at risk
Plus the courts might wish to impose a stiff sentence as a deterrent - there are still 20,000 of these dogs out there
8-12 years?
His life is ruined because he wanted some stupid evil dogs to make him feel hard. Twat
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
It is not entirely clear from the Mail's report but if the dogs lived in the house the dead woman was visiting, then the situation is murkier than if the dogs were off their leads outside and attacked her, or if the dogs were set on her. Ironically, from the dogs' point of view they may have been protecting the child from this complete stranger who had broken into their home to kidnap him.
As I understand it, if your dogs kill someone, you are liable.
Animals, in law, have no mural agency. So what they may have thought is irrelevant.
Multiple illegal dogs Not neutered Not registered Probable attitude towards the law of dogs (expressed) - probably evidence of ignoring the potential problem will appear
Unless he has spotless record and the dogs had no previous issues, the probability is that that there will be more aggravating than mitigating circumstances. So higher sentence than 8 years
Unless he’s mad, he should plead guilty. Lowers the sentence a bit.
I reckon he’ll be lucky to get 8 years.
Reading that, I’d say you’re right. Plus this dead woman had complained about the danger of the breed and the temperament of these particular dogs - no doubt because her small grandson lived next door and was at risk
Plus the courts might wish to impose a stiff sentence as a deterrent - there are still 20,000 of these dogs out there
8-12 years?
His life is ruined because he wanted some stupid evil dogs to make him feel hard. Twat
Prison is the best place for him, and the entire breed of those dogs need a bullet to their heads
Indeed, ChatGPT tells me that if you own an out of control illegal dog (under the dangerous dogs act) and it then kills someone - you can get a maximum sentence of 14 years
Good. Make an example of him
A 39 year old man living in Jaywick with 8 XL Bullies.
Which party might he be voting for?
The Lazy Stereotype Party.
Jaywick (& West Clacton) Ward has two Independent councillors, out of two. One of them is Vice-Chair of Tendring Council. Don’t know what the votes were.
It’s a very strange place, though.
Never been and I’m unlikely ever to go. From what I read of it it seems a little like Withernsea.
I went there fairly frequently when I was a child. I grew up not that far away. My Dad had us on Sundays (divorced family) and had to look around for things for us to do. Clacton was fairly good (the pier, the front, the arcades, for one year an amusement park called "Atlantic Park"). Dedham was another destination, as was Jaywick (a quieter sea front, a circus once in a while, some corner shops, and a small amusement arcade once upon a time).
But when you're nine or ten years old, you don't pick up on the same things you do as an adult.
“Sonia Martin told MailOnline: 'They were XL Bullies. There were eight of them in the house, six puppies and two adults. None of them neutered, not registered.
'The owner's words were "no one is going to tell me what to do with my own f*****g dogs."”
Well, now you’re going to prison you stupid irresponsible c*nt
The XL Bully ban is ineffective because 1) The owners don't care about rules in general 2) The dogs can break through fences to attack people
Will be many more of these until the various restrictions start to have an effect on breeding rates.
Though of course Bully owners being arrested, convicted and jailed after dog attacks might make a few think again
Yes. This c*nt of an owner was breaking the law in multiple ways - it seems - he had eight XL Bullies (none neutered and none registered). And no exemptions
So he’s breaking all those new laws AND now his dogs have chewed his son’s grandmother to death
I imagine he will face a chunky jail sentence. Indeed could you be done for manslaughter in that situation? Perhaps a lawyer like @DavidL can tell us
Pah, more likely community service at worst.
Actually, I think the courts do hand down tough jail sentences in these situations - esp if someone dies
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
It is not entirely clear from the Mail's report but if the dogs lived in the house the dead woman was visiting, then the situation is murkier than if the dogs were off their leads outside and attacked her, or if the dogs were set on her. Ironically, from the dogs' point of view they may have been protecting the child from this complete stranger who had broken into their home to kidnap him.
As I understand it, if your dogs kill someone, you are liable.
Animals, in law, have no mural agency. So what they may have thought is irrelevant.
Multiple illegal dogs Not neutered Not registered Probable attitude towards the law of dogs (expressed) - probably evidence of ignoring the potential problem will appear
Unless he has spotless record and the dogs had no previous issues, the probability is that that there will be more aggravating than mitigating circumstances. So higher sentence than 8 years
Unless he’s mad, he should plead guilty. Lowers the sentence a bit.
I reckon he’ll be lucky to get 8 years.
Reading that, I’d say you’re right. Plus this dead woman had complained about the danger of the breed and the temperament of these particular dogs - no doubt because her small grandson lived next door and was at risk
Plus the courts might wish to impose a stiff sentence as a deterrent - there are still 20,000 of these dogs out there
8-12 years?
His life is ruined because he wanted some stupid evil dogs to make him feel hard. Twat
Prison is the best place for him, and the entire breed of those dogs need a bullet to their heads
The Mail has indentified the dog owner. A wannabe rapper called “Wyless Man”
I generally abjure the phrase “toxic masculinity” but in this case - wannabe rapper, would be drill musician and XL Bully breeder “Wyless Man” I think it is sadly applicable
If I’m ever on room 101 I’m sending in “restaurants bringing you the bill then disappearing while you’re getting your wallet out.”
Grrr
You need to have your card in hand ready when they bring it. And - tip here - if you mentally calculate your bill (just approx to the nearest £) you don't need to check any details, so long as it's ballpark you just swoop and swipe.
It's doing that checking which gives the staff member the opportunity to steal away. Course some people (esp if they went to a top private school) are comfortable with barking, "No, wait there," to the staff member, maybe raising a finger to emphasize, but that's not everyone.
A pretty innocuous piece where he says he prefers Trump's policies to the Dems (esp on immigration and the border and woke) but cannot support him on account of the risk to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The default position of the sane and decent right in other words. He also predicts Trump will win by landslide in November.
I link it not so much for Sullivan's thoughts but for the BtL response in unHerdland. You'd have thought it would be greeted in a kind of muted and mixed way. A few nods, a few shakes. But no - they're furious (!) because it isn't 100% worshipful of the great leader.
Incredible really. Some of these people can string a sentence, use quite booklearny words, there's probably some uni in their past, maybe a good one, but in essence they're away with the fairies. You can also sense the nastiness bubbling under. I see it a lot (with the online right) yet am still taken aback by it.
I had heard it reported on here that Unherd was an oasis of sensible, non aligned commentary. Imagine my surprise..
It's dark down there btl. Maybe you're a tougher nut - I sense you are - but I have to psyche myself whenever I pop in.
Labour pretty much gives up on reforming social care.
Another wasted five years ahead at least on this. Why will no political leaders in this country have the guts to sort this mess out? Time after time after time, they all back down and kick into the long grass.
Well, they all look at what happened to Theresa May. Her policy was very sensible but it cost her her majority from those who prioritise their inheritance over the obligations of tax payers to pick up the tab.
No it did not. Theresa May (almost) lost because Lynton Crosby ran a lousy campaign and then blamed Nick & Fiona's social care policy. It had already been ditched which would surely have been known by anyone voting on that basis.
The other factor was the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the election campaign and Theresa May saying her axing of 10,000 coppers made no difference.
Yes it did. I canvassed in Ilford North after the dementia tax was included in the manifesto and it was the worst week of canvassing I have had in terms of mood change.
Hence Boris announced his £86k cap on liability for social care costs which did win him a majority in 2019, albeit it has been kicked into the long grass
Indeed. No party - particularly an opposition one - is going to run on a proper social care policy in a manifesto since 2017. As any policy that tackles it, does so fairly, and doesn't cost the government a bomb, is going to upset a large chunk of people by making them pay a bit more tax to in effect insure themselves against mammoth care costs.
Your best hope is that a party - and let's be honest, that means Labour given the polls, gets a big enough majority that it decides it's worth doing mid-term to avoid later problems. Taking the short-term hit before things settle down and people realise it's better than a lottery and a collapsing care system. Daring the opposition to play politics with it and then running as the party that finally fixed the issue when it comes to a second term.
My assumption would be that the South would emotionally desire reunification - the question might be whether they would be willing to pay the largeish bill that would come with it. At the moment, Northern Ireland is something of a dead loss economically and it has rather more generous public services than in the Republic.
Of course, Sinn Féin's manifesto for Ireland includes an expansion in the south - e.g. an NHS style universal FPU healthcare system. So that may cease to matter as much if they are in power in Stormont and Dublin.
And Sinn Fein have got the key economic portfolios in the new executive, so if it lasts for any length of time they have the opportunity to try and sort out the North's economy. Whether they have the imagination and ability to do so may be a rather different question.
Polling is 66% in favour of reunification in the Republic, the other third split between don't know and no. Insofar as money will be an issue in the poll it will be an issue for Northern Ireland voters rather than those in the Republic, because the assumption will be that Dublin won't spend as freely as London.
I would expect it to take a while before we get a border poll, though it's possible the dynamic of a Sinn Fein Taoiseach and First Minister at the same time might accelerate things.
Also, if Sinn Fein win the position of First Minister again at the next Assembly election, how does Unionism react to the prospect of never having a Unionist First Minister ever again?
Northern Ireland is going to boom now it has political stability. Because it is in the perfect Brexit position, inside the EU single market and inside the UK single market. Companies will flock there - they might even relocate from the south - quite an irony
In 10 years the appetite in Ulster for reunification - with all its anguish - will be even less than it is now
One of my criticisms of the SNP is that they have failed to use being the government in Holyrood to make the practical case for independence. They've used it to make a political case, to draw political dividing lines with London, but they haven't managed to use the powers they have to make a case that goes, "with this little bit of power we've managed to improve x, just imagine what we could do with independence".
If SF are in government north and south then you will see huge amounts of north/south cooperation, and if Ulster booms the clear message will be, "this is what a limited amount of north/south coordination can achieve, imagine what we could do with Irish Unity".
Yes, the road to independence was to show us how Scotland would be viable as an independent country with a tax base that could support the services we expect. Salmond got this to a degree (although it was much less of a problem when the North Sea was a much larger contributor) and Forbes seems to as well.
But Sturgeon? Economics bored her and she never made any attempt to hide it. She was obsessed with social policy and gender but creating a tax base? Not for her.
The sad consequence is that Scotland has become more dependent on cross subsidy and would face an alarming deficit if they went alone, requiring serious cuts in public spending. Some of this, such as the money pumped into various charities and other SNP dominated groups would come easy, some of it would not.
The future, with Grangemouth and a number of other businesses struggling with the end of free money, does not look good. Scotland will be in recession this year, something the rest of the UK will avoid and the gap will get even wider.
David, youi seem to forget that Westminster takes all the money , makes all the big decisions and takes on debt and then pretends it is Scotland's debt. It is impossible that we would be worse off than as a neglected downtrodden region of England. Agree the SNP have been crap other than filling ther own pockets since the referendum, but madness to pretend that you can do anything relevant when most powers are retained to London. More relevant is that almost every other small countr yin teh world is much better off than Scotland and most have far fewer natural resources. Most colonies improve themselves when they get out from under the yoke of their occupier.
Scotland has more devolved power than any other region in the world. The SNP have chosen to waste money on the ferries, to delay the dualling of the A9 and the A1, to boost consumption by middle class bungs rather than trying to increase investment, to drive out higher tax payers by non competitive tax rates, to turn their back on the oil industry instead of encouraging Aberdeen to go for international development with the skills developed in the North Sea, I could really go on all day.
While I don’t disagree with your critique of SNP rule, Scotland definitely does not have more devolved power than any other region in the world. Quebec, Catalonia and Åland, for example, have more devolved power.
I disagree. In relation to Quebec, for example, it says this:
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
So we are now not saying the article but going elsewhere? I feel the goalposts being dragged as we write.
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
Isn’ t the Basque Country extremely autonomous? On a par with Scotland perhaps?
Autonomous my arse, we are tightly controlled from London, with all useful powers retained as well.
Comments
He faces a number of huge risks, top of which is a 'Labour's Tax Bombshell' campaign.
Current figures don't remotely add up for any party winning the next election, it's a waiting disaster. He needs to ensure a score draw on this by simply matching Tory plans, give or take the odd few pounds, and then, if he can win, having a plan for 5-10 years that he can sell to the grown ups in the audience.
The other approaches lose him the election. He has enough other ways of losing it. He should have our support.
Good. Make an example of him
The other factor was the two (count 'em, two) terrorist outrages during the election campaign and Theresa May saying her axing of 10,000 coppers made no difference.
MAGA-Republicans are dishonest enough that they attach more importance to political hits on Biden, plus possible benefits for Mr Chump later, that they are more important than their precious 'restrict the border' issue.
Which party might he be voting for?
It's interesting that there seem to be are fewer obstacles used to catch cars, compared to the Huntington to Cambridge Guided Busway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5122096,-2.4126784,3a,34.2y,250.59h,89.18t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sC-y_SkIt9HPMKvbwiE2ymA!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=C-y_SkIt9HPMKvbwiE2ymA&cb_client=search.revgeo_and_fetch.gps&w=96&h=64&yaw=34.517776&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
(That url looks as if it could be shorter, but I'm not sure what to edit out
"Nothing has changed" etc etc.
Tho I must admit a raised eyebrow when I saw “jaywick”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35716653
The issue that I have is the country clearly needs radical change. A bit of spending here of there isn’t going to touch the sides.
Starmer should be using the opportunity to build a case for change. As Truss discovered you can’t just surprise people. He’s playing such a conservative approach (heh) that he’s likely to win but without the popular groundswell to shake up the country in the way that needs to be done.
Go out and build the case for planning reform. Argue for welfare reform, whatever you choose (probably a max of 2). I haven’t seen the detail of what Streeting has hinted at for the NHS but that would be a good start.
If Starmer doesn’t meaningfully change the country’s direction it’s going to be another wasted decade
I was always amazed that Jeremy Corbyn, if allowed to speak for five minutes, would almost always get to the P-word, no matter what the subject was a few minutes earlier.
(Yes most of these marches appear to be mostly Iranian propaganda and a heavy dose of antisemitism. I suspect that Iran and Qatar are funding a number of groups involved.)
The central point remains. A Parliament genuinely focused on independence would have worked to use their considerable powers to make Scotland a more viable independent country. Holyrood has, if anything, moved the dial back on this.
The current leader was Elected in Feb 2024 with votes from around 1 in 17 of the members of the Union.
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/civil-services-biggest-union-names-first-female-general-secretary
Imagine my surprise..
Which is not my rabbit hole for today !
Wiki suggests they generally get 3-5 years in chokey, this guy might get more because of his brazen flouting of the new laws
The Thatcher similarity doesn't necessarily bode well for Starmer however. Thatcher was very unpopular in the first couple of years. If it wasn't for a random set of Argentinian generals ...
Every Province of Canada has way more autonomy.
You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. You may not be allowed to own a dog in the future and your dog may be destroyed.
If you let your dog injure someone you can be sent to prison for up to 5 years or fined (or both). If you deliberately use your dog to injure someone you could be charged with ‘malicious wounding’.
If you allow your dog to kill someone you can be sent to prison for up to 14 years or get an unlimited fine (or both).
If you allow your dog to injure an assistance dog (for example a guide dog) you can be sent to prison for up to 3 years or fined (or both).
Hence Boris announced his £86k cap on liability for social care costs which did win him a majority in 2019, albeit it has been kicked into the long grass
Doubly so when you've ditched a major policy and failed to prevent two terrorist acts.
Canada has a federal structure which entrusts governments in each of its ten provinces and three territories with many important public services, administered via regional parliaments. Canada's provinces have greater control over local expenditure and revenues than Holyrood has under the Smith Commission - but funding is sourced from the central government via "transfer payments" as well as local taxes, meaning the government can impose federal mandates to influence what regional governments do..
That doesn't seem to me to be radically different. And since 2016 more of Social Security has been devolved as well.
You have to ask, if Irish unity was to happen, would the Unionists be offered a power-sharing arrangement in Dublin? Would a DUPer be guaranteed to become deputy-taoiseach? Would the republic join NATO (or the Commonwealth)? Anything likely to be offered the Unionist community? Is this even being actively discussed?
But we’re talking Northern Ireland. Logic has never featured much in political discussions there.
A judge might feel the need to set a tough precedent. Certainly the government will(for good or ill) threatening an appeal if the maximum is not enforced in the event of a conviction. (Unless there were mitigating circumstances, e.g. the victim was attacking the dogs with a cattle prod, but that seems unlikely.)
In Europe everyone is worried about what happens next year when Trump takes over and stops US support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have turned off US funding already. The crisis has already arrived.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2024/02/01/biden-leads-trump-in-hypothetical-general-election-matchup
Though as you state for now most voters in NI want to stay in the UK
Comparisons are difficult because it depends on what you consider the most important powers. But Scotland has had devolved control over health, education, local government, domestic law (with minor exceptions), police, the courts, social work, social care, the environment and economic policy (in part) along with much of taxation and now social security. Of significant central spending only defence and foreign affairs are excluded. The pretence that Holyrood has no ability to influence Scotland's future for good or ill is a pathetic excuse by a bunch of losers.
I, of course, am not including you in that because you didn't disagree with my critique of the Scottish government.
Doesn’t look good for the dog-owner
“Oh my illegal and dangerous dogs which I illegally refuse to get neutered and registered took against this grandmother visiting her grandson because they saw her as a threat so they ate her face off”
“Fair enough. Suspended sentence”
https://www.nisra.gov.uk/system/files/statistics/census-2021-main-statistics-for-northern-ireland-phase-1-statistical-bulletin-national-identity.pdf
"Devolution is different in different regions of Spain, which is divided into 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities. More devolved areas like the Basque Country have responsibility for all taxes except import duties and VAT. The regions control large percentages of expenditure and revenues, although still less than Holyrood will receive under the Smith recommendations."
It sounds like it might be although the comment at the end is interesting.
Don’t know what the votes were.
It’s a very strange place, though.
There are also some interesting parallels with Scotland. Like the Scots, the Basques were never entirely conquered by the Romans
I do think there's a trend in the noise. Before the Brexit referendum all polls were overwhelmingly for the Union; after the referendum coming closer to parity; recently falling back somewhat. I wouldn't say that's the final position. I think the identity question is a better long term indicator. The Union is stills ahead but the trend is away from it.
Everyone does it but you don't admit to it in polite company.
The only real volatility came during the Brexit years. That’s when YES - just once - overtook NO. The polls are now reverting to type
You just want Britain to break up because you want some revenge on the Brexit Britain that betrayed you. Its not going to happen - not in Northern Ireland anyway
For a start, no one there wants to risk the troubles returning, and tearing up the UK would do that. A fudge will always be found that avoids this trauma
The rapprochement between Labour and capitalism was on lavish display last Thursday when a throng of business bosses crowded into an executive suite at the Oval cricket ground in south London for an audience with the Labour leader and Rachel Reeves.
There’s clearly an audience among companies and investors for the message that they would be better off with Labour after the havoc inflicted by Brexit, the “fuck business” posture of Boris Johnson, the financial chaos unleashed by Liz Truss and Kamikaze Kwarteng, and Rishi Sunak’s screeching U-turns over net zero and high-speed rail. One senior Tory involved in his party’s effort to rebuild broken bridges with business reports that whenever he visits the chief executive of a FTSE 100 company he finds that “Rachel Reeves has got there before me”.
This romance invites the question: who is seducing whom?
Like bees to a honeypot, money swarms in the direction of power. Business chiefs almost universally expect that it will soon be Labour ministers who are deciding how they are regulated and how much they are taxed. That’s why they want to rub shoulders with the next government.
Scratch below the surface of this apparent romance between Labour and business and you won’t find true love. It’s more a marriage of convenience.
A Labour government will be in power to serve the whole country, not just one sectional interest, however important. Collaboration in the pursuit of common goals makes sense. Cosiness would be a mistake. Labour should be guided by Goldilocks when setting the temperature of its relationship with business. Not too cold, but not too hot either.
Grrr
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o2ejWPPxtQ378XRCA
Animals, in law, have no mural agency. So what they may have thought is irrelevant.
Multiple illegal dogs
Not neutered
Not registered
Probable attitude towards the law of dogs (expressed) - probably evidence of ignoring the potential problem will appear
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/aaa-owner-or-person-in-charge-of-a-dog-dangerously-out-of-control-in-any-place-in-england-or-wales-whether-or-not-a-public-place-where-death-is-caused/
Illegal dog gets you culpability A.
6-14 years, starting at 8 years
Unless he has spotless record and the dogs had no previous issues, the probability is that that there will be more aggravating than mitigating circumstances. So higher sentence than 8 years
Unless he’s mad, he should plead guilty. Lowers the sentence a bit.
I reckon he’ll be lucky to get 8 years.
Horrific place. It’s like a scene from a British version of the first True Detective series
Still, better than the current bunch of arseholes anyway.
Plus the courts might wish to impose a stiff sentence as a deterrent - there are still 20,000 of these dogs out there
8-12 years?
His life is ruined because he wanted some stupid evil dogs to make him feel hard. Twat
My Dad had us on Sundays (divorced family) and had to look around for things for us to do. Clacton was fairly good (the pier, the front, the arcades, for one year an amusement park called "Atlantic Park"). Dedham was another destination, as was Jaywick (a quieter sea front, a circus once in a while, some corner shops, and a small amusement arcade once upon a time).
But when you're nine or ten years old, you don't pick up on the same things you do as an adult.
He seems nice
Utter inadequacy masked with horrible aggression
It's doing that checking which gives the staff member the opportunity to steal away. Course some people (esp if they went to a top private school) are comfortable with barking, "No, wait there," to the staff member, maybe raising a finger to emphasize, but that's not everyone.
gone through due process, or perhaps a progress through the guts of a beggar.
Your best hope is that a party - and let's be honest, that means Labour given the polls, gets a big enough majority that it decides it's worth doing mid-term to avoid later problems. Taking the short-term hit before things settle down and people realise it's better than a lottery and a collapsing care system. Daring the opposition to play politics with it and then running as the party that finally fixed the issue when it comes to a second term.