If anything the local elections will reduce Reform momentum. They are likely to perform poorly in the London Mayor and Assembly elections and won't have enough candidates in the council elections to get anywhere near the Tories. They might do a bit better in the PCC elections but still not enough to win
I don't think most voters will notice. The press the morning after will not have headlines saying "Reform UK perform poorly". They'll all say "Conservative disaster".
RefUK are starting from a low base, so they'll probably make some gains somewhere, which means they'll have something to trumpet. They'll do badly in the London Mayoral election but could pick up an Assembly seat or two.
Given current polls have the Tories on about 20-25%, even if they got the 26% NEV they got in last year's local elections, CCHQ would spin that as 'done better than the polls' and if Reform fail to gain any councils or PCC posts or Assembly seats then their momentum stalls
CCHQ spin isn't even effective on once loyal backbenchers now.
I am a life-long Tory voter from a family of life-long Tory voters. None of us going to be voting for this Blairite shower....
Genuine question - why do you think the current government is Blairite?
There is no attempt to take people out of poverty. No investment in public services, not even by enabling the private sector to take a greater role. No social reform. Poor relations with Europe rather than co-operation. On all these Blair was quite timid and leaning slightly right anyway. The only thing I see in common is a tendency to authoritarian centralising, hardly something that right wing parties rail against in my experience.
I do agree they are a shower.
This is the government where £250k per year is planned on being spent, per child, for a special care home in Cotswolds.
It’s many things, but a government spending and planning on spending ever vaster sums on social services and medical provision isn’t exactly doing the Scrouge.
Personally, I think that much of the money is misdirected. The major problem seems to be a lack of interest in pushing through changes. The default in government is the Dead Hand system.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
Trump will win Texas again even if he loses nationally again.
There are also lots of anti abortion evangelicals in Texas
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
Abortion will (literally) be in the ballot in Florida after yesterday's state Supreme Court ruling. In the meantime a ban after 6weeks (which is most abortions) will be introduced.
Florida currently only bans abortion after 15 weeks and even the proposed 6 week ban would still allow abortion in the case of rape or life of the mother beyond that and still be less restrictive than the abortion law in Poland for instance
The abortion law in Poland is very restrictive and a point of extensive protest.
Increasing abortion restrictions in Western countries is very rare. And is a major vote mover/motivator.
Abortion rights will be front and centre in the campaign to November in the US.
Interestingly, Trump not saying how he will vote on the Florida 15 week referendum. He is a Florida voter. Caught on the horns of a MAGA dilemma.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
If anything the local elections will reduce Reform momentum. They are likely to perform poorly in the London Mayor and Assembly elections and won't have enough candidates in the council elections to get anywhere near the Tories. They might do a bit better in the PCC elections but still not enough to win
I don't think most voters will notice. The press the morning after will not have headlines saying "Reform UK perform poorly". They'll all say "Conservative disaster".
RefUK are starting from a low base, so they'll probably make some gains somewhere, which means they'll have something to trumpet. They'll do badly in the London Mayoral election but could pick up an Assembly seat or two.
Given current polls have the Tories on about 20-25%, even if they got the 26% NEV they got in last year's local elections, CCHQ would spin that as 'done better than the polls' and if Reform fail to gain any councils or PCC posts or Assembly seats then their momentum stalls
CCHQ spin isn't even effective on once loyal backbenchers now.
I am a life-long Tory voter from a family of life-long Tory voters. None of us going to be voting for this Blairite shower....
And until the last two elections I was a lifelong Tory voter from a family of lifelong Tory voters. Now I wouldn’t even consider voting for this bunch of foreigner hating, freedom restricting right-wing zealots.
Between me and Mortimer is the heart of the Tory problem.
That looks like an unbridgeable chasm from where I am standing.
It was bridgeable for a bit. Partly you need the chutzpah of a Johnson to try to sell it, partly you need to have not been selling it for several years. Johnson had something of an excuse for why his vision of Britain hadn't happened yet, but they've had five years and gone backwards. Most importantly, you need someone like Scary Jez to corral disparate voters into your lifeboat, however leaky it is.
2016-20 worked electorally because Lee Anderson and Rishi Sunak thought they were on the same side. They really aren't and were both chumps for thinking they were. Dislike of taxes and the EU aren't enough for a stable relationship.
Johnson's brand of snake oil has set the Conservatives back years.
Unintended consequences. Possessing small vials of nitrous oxide was made illegal last November following a moral panic over littering and now cylinders of the pain-killing gas are being nicked from hospitals and ambulances.
"Hippy crack" lol. This is the stuff they give to women in labour that induces a mild and very temporary sense of euphoria... I know it's the Daily Mail so expecting any degree of common sense is pointless, but even by their deranged standards on these issues this seems a pretty stupid description of an essentially harmless substance. Also, I've noticed that as a result of the ban there are no longer small vials littering the streets... they've been replaced by much larger containers. Another stunning victory for the war on drugs!
I got trained on its use when the Fire Service wanted us to be paramedics on the cheap. You have to really take a few lung fulls for it to work effectively and it wears off very, very quickly. Our management pulled it because they are risk averse and the whole experiment was pulled because we didn't fancy doing an extra job alongside fire and rescue and not getting paid for it.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
Trump will win Texas again even if he loses nationally again.
There are also lots of anti abortion evangelicals in Texas
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
Abortion will (literally) be in the ballot in Florida after yesterday's state Supreme Court ruling. In the meantime a ban after 6weeks (which is most abortions) will be introduced.
Florida currently only bans abortion after 15 weeks and even the proposed 6 week ban would still allow abortion in the case of rape or life of the mother beyond that and still be less restrictive than the abortion law in Poland for instance
The abortion law in Poland is very restrictive and a point of extensive protest.
Increasing abortion restrictions in Western countries is very rare. And is a major vote mover/motivator.
Abortion rights will be front and centre in the campaign to November in the US.
It deserves to be. It's quite a thing to try and roll back such a profound freedom as a woman's dominion over her own body.
Morning all! Saw a piece in the I (I think!) Suggesting the Tories are maintaining an 80:20 campaign strategy - defend 80 most marginal and target 20 Labour seats. Apparantly they know its duff but the party won't accept a defensive strategy lower down the chain and 'some of our red wall polling' blah blah blah They are fecking nutjobs
I am in a ski lodge in the French Alps and the fellow has just vacuumed the floors with a Chard born and bred Henry 200. We can still manufacture and export!
Hip, hip, hooray for British enterprise!
Er, how do you know it wasn't exported pre-2017? The 200 has been around for decades now (well, two and a bit, but that counts as decades in PBspeak).
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
But it was. Under Ken Clark.
And they did. Under Gordon Brown.
If you are going to let the Conservatives off the hook for the state of the economy after COVID and Ukraine (notwithstanding the Trussterf***) surely you need to give Brown a free pass for the Lehmann Bros crash of 2008, and you forget Brown saved the World economy- singlehandedly!
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
Genuine LOL. "Britain is booming" posted on the wall of a s***hole.
Looks like an offie in Paisley. Might have been the Merthyr Tydfil Conservativew Club?
If anything the local elections will reduce Reform momentum. They are likely to perform poorly in the London Mayor and Assembly elections and won't have enough candidates in the council elections to get anywhere near the Tories. They might do a bit better in the PCC elections but still not enough to win
I don't think most voters will notice. The press the morning after will not have headlines saying "Reform UK perform poorly". They'll all say "Conservative disaster".
RefUK are starting from a low base, so they'll probably make some gains somewhere, which means they'll have something to trumpet. They'll do badly in the London Mayoral election but could pick up an Assembly seat or two.
Given current polls have the Tories on about 20-25%, even if they got the 26% NEV they got in last year's local elections, CCHQ would spin that as 'done better than the polls' and if Reform fail to gain any councils or PCC posts or Assembly seats then their momentum stalls
Some wins for Reform UK would be good for their momentum and failing to win anything would be a lost opportunity, but I think the main reason for Reform’s momentum is nothing they’re doing, but rather the unpopularity of the Conservative Party. While the Tories remain unpopular, Reform will continue to poll well.
CCHQ arguments over NEV will ring hollow in the face of large numbers of lost seats.
Seats lost will also be substantially less than last year, given the number of Tory seats up is in total less than the number of Tory seats they lost last year
Losing lots of seats looks bad (and is bad). Going, “Actually, we lost fewer seats than we lost last year” isn’t going to cut through.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Is it? The Tories were willing to talk about Lords reform in the 2010 Parliament and the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 is the closest we’ve come to Lords reform in recent years. (It would’ve got rid of the hereditaries.)
The retention of the hereditaries after 1999 was only ever intended as a short-term compromise until a full reform was worked out (but then you can say the same about everything from 1911 onwards).
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
Genuine LOL. "Britain is booming" posted on the wall of a s***hole.
Looks like an offie in Paisley. Might have been the Merthyr Tydfil Conservativew Club?
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
I am in a ski lodge in the French Alps and the fellow has just vacuumed the floors with a Chard born and bred Henry 200. We can still manufacture and export!
Hip, hip, hooray for British enterprise!
Er, how do you know it wasn't exported pre-2017? The 200 has been around for decades now (well, two and a bit, but that counts as decades in PBspeak).
It probably was, but Numatic still manufacture in Chard.
If anything the local elections will reduce Reform momentum. They are likely to perform poorly in the London Mayor and Assembly elections and won't have enough candidates in the council elections to get anywhere near the Tories. They might do a bit better in the PCC elections but still not enough to win
I don't think most voters will notice. The press the morning after will not have headlines saying "Reform UK perform poorly". They'll all say "Conservative disaster".
RefUK are starting from a low base, so they'll probably make some gains somewhere, which means they'll have something to trumpet. They'll do badly in the London Mayoral election but could pick up an Assembly seat or two.
Given current polls have the Tories on about 20-25%, even if they got the 26% NEV they got in last year's local elections, CCHQ would spin that as 'done better than the polls' and if Reform fail to gain any councils or PCC posts or Assembly seats then their momentum stalls
CCHQ spin isn't even effective on once loyal backbenchers now.
I am a life-long Tory voter from a family of life-long Tory voters. None of us going to be voting for this Blairite shower....
Genuine question - why do you think the current government is Blairite?
There is no attempt to take people out of poverty. No investment in public services, not even by enabling the private sector to take a greater role. No social reform. Poor relations with Europe rather than co-operation. On all these Blair was quite timid and leaning slightly right anyway. The only thing I see in common is a tendency to authoritarian centralising, hardly something that right wing parties rail against in my experience.
I do agree they are a shower.
This is the government where £250k per year is planned on being spent, per child, for a special care home in Cotswolds.
It’s many things, but a government spending and planning on spending ever vaster sums on social services and medical provision isn’t exactly doing the Scrouge.
Personally, I think that much of the money is misdirected. The major problem seems to be a lack of interest in pushing through changes. The default in government is the Dead Hand system.
I agree with you that a lot of money is being misdirected. But that doesn't make it Blairite, or necessarily left wing. Just profligate and/or incompetent.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
When you have a prominent Scottish Tory - and one heavily involved in the Bill while an MSP - saying things like this ... obviously Mr Sunak does not read such things.
'Adam Tomkins, a former Tory MSP and convener of Holyrood’s justice committee who was closely involved with the passage of the bill in 2021, said: “Asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed just by virtue of the gender by which someone chooses to identify is not and never can be a hate crime under this legislation.”
Tomkins and others have warned that social media postings and some reporting on the act has wrongly suggested that it is criminalising comments that are merely offensive to others.'
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Is it? The Tories were willing to talk about Lords reform in the 2010 Parliament and the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012 is the closest we’ve come to Lords reform in recent years. (It would’ve got rid of the hereditaries.)
The retention of the hereditaries after 1999 was only ever intended as a short-term compromise until a full reform was worked out (but then you can say the same about everything from 1911 onwards).
And Tory backbenchers correctly voted it down.
Way before even the current Conservative Party was founded in the mid 19th century the Tory Party was the Party of Crown, Established Church and the landed classes (including the hereditary peerage).
It was also Lord Cranborne who successively negotiated with Blair in 1999 to save about 90 hereditary peers, even if it annoyed Hague at the time
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Morning all! Saw a piece in the I (I think!) Suggesting the Tories are maintaining an 80:20 campaign strategy - defend 80 most marginal and target 20 Labour seats. Apparantly they know its duff but the party won't accept a defensive strategy lower down the chain and 'some of our red wall polling' blah blah blah They are fecking nutjobs
Trouble that all doomed governments have.
Plan your campaign according to where the front line actually is (say, seats 150-225) and you are conceding defeat before you even start and throwing over 100 of your colleagues to the wolves.
Plan your campaign according to where you would like the front line to be (say, seats 300-375) and they still fall and you are taking finite resources from the actual front line, so they fall as well.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Increasing abortion restrictions in Western countries is very rare. And is a major vote mover/motivator.
Abortion rights will be front and centre in the campaign to November in the US.
The best thing about abortion rights is the secret ballot. Millions might shriek in public about how a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose (including women). But then in the polling booth, they suddenly remember that they do want to chose; and vote the other way.
Then the few who are genuinely 'pro-life' are all confused when they only get 6 votes for them.......
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Which as I said would still be less restrictive than Poland's abortion law for instance
Since when was that a model for the US ?
It would be for conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals
Evangelicals only stared caring about abortion after right-wing politicians sought to make it a wedge issue in the 1970s.
Roman Catholics notionally oppose contraception. Do you want to see how banning contraception goes down with voters?
Well it might at least improve western birthrates and get them back above replacement level! Even the GOP isn't yet proposing that however
Oh, then you advocate that we support the "preserve the fatherhood rights of rapists" campaign, do you?
That is a completely separate issue to contraception use and you know it, though of course even rapists remain the biological father if it produces a child, even if they are restricted on access rights
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Which as I said would still be less restrictive than Poland's abortion law for instance
Since when was that a model for the US ?
It would be for conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals
Evangelicals only stared caring about abortion after right-wing politicians sought to make it a wedge issue in the 1970s.
Roman Catholics notionally oppose contraception. Do you want to see how banning contraception goes down with voters?
Well it might at least improve western birthrates and get them back above replacement level! Even the GOP isn't yet proposing that however
Oh, then you advocate that we support the "preserve the fatherhood rights of rapists" campaign, do you?
That is a completely separate issue to contraception use and you know it, though of course even rapists remain the bioligical father if it produces a child, even if they are restricted on access rights
The thread is about abortion as well. And you still havent' addressed the matter properly - though your comment about access rights can be read both ways.
Increasing abortion restrictions in Western countries is very rare. And is a major vote mover/motivator.
Abortion rights will be front and centre in the campaign to November in the US.
The best thing about abortion rights is the secret ballot. Millions might shriek in public about how a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose (including women). But then in the polling booth, they suddenly remember that they do want to chose; and vote the other way.
Then the few who are genuinely 'pro-life' are all confused when they only get 6 votes for them.......
The abortion argument ranges from a complete ban, even in the case of rape or the life of the mother, up to abortion on demand until the baby is due.
The main problem with telling the populace that someone else did it is that it makes future attacks more likely.
Country A is at war with Country B (sorry conducting a special military operation against country ! Non state actor C attacks Country A.
Country A's leaders decide lying and blaming it all on Country B is a big winner...! Hurrah! Everyone gets pissed off at Country B.
Non-State Actor C then attacks again... and again... and again.... After all, the security services in Country A have been told to look out for Country B citizens conducting the attacks, so don't bother checking anyone else. Why would they need to? [1]
Everyone's a winner, except Country A and Country B.......
[1] You could, I suppose, lie to the public but tell the security services that it was Non State Actor C that did it, but that'll eventually leak out, then you look like lying toe-rags.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
But it was. Under Ken Clark.
And they did. Under Gordon Brown.
If you are going to let the Conservatives off the hook for the state of the economy after COVID and Ukraine (notwithstanding the Trussterf***) surely you need to give Brown a free pass for the Lehmann Bros crash of 2008, and you forget Brown saved the World economy- singlehandedly!
Covid and Ukraine (and the consequent cost of living crisis) were events not of their making but to which the Government had to react.
Brown was warned of the consequences of his action - that then came back to bite him on the arse. If anybody deserves credit for reacting wisely it was probably Darling.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
It’s about definitions. To some people, a statement such as “only born women can be women” is an attempt to stir up hatred. To others it is a point of view.
Who decides what is hatred, and what is stirring it up?
The courts, in the end, and it will probably be a mess.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
Morning all! Saw a piece in the I (I think!) Suggesting the Tories are maintaining an 80:20 campaign strategy - defend 80 most marginal and target 20 Labour seats. Apparantly they know its duff but the party won't accept a defensive strategy lower down the chain and 'some of our red wall polling' blah blah blah They are fecking nutjobs
Trouble that all doomed governments have.
Plan your campaign according to where the front line actually is (say, seats 150-225) and you are conceding defeat before you even start and throwing over 100 of your colleagues to the wolves.
Plan your campaign according to where you would like the front line to be (say, seats 300-375) and they still fall and you are taking finite resources from the actual front line, so they fall as well.
Absolutely, I'd be resourcing 125 to 225, absolute best case restricting Labour to a double digit majority. I'd wager this 'red wall polling' is going to be slightly better returns/lower gaps in those areas that have been moving away from Labour over the last 15 or more years (Bishop Auckland, Darlington, the Old coal fields etc) but they will still face the same problem getting their vote out even if Labour are 'gaining less'. The Houchen result should show us how effective their GOTV is in that part of the world
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Betting Post: I expect a big Labour win but I think the market might be skewed too much that way now. Cons to get 150/199 seats is 6 on the exchange. I like that for value so I've done some.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
So if a law were passed declaring it a hate crime to mock the wearing of kilts and JK Rowling said, "Well I still think kilts make people look ridiculous and you can arrest me if you want," you think this would be tantamount to an admission of stirring up hate?
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Which as I said would still be less restrictive than Poland's abortion law for instance
Since when was that a model for the US ?
It would be for conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals
Evangelicals only stared caring about abortion after right-wing politicians sought to make it a wedge issue in the 1970s.
Roman Catholics notionally oppose contraception. Do you want to see how banning contraception goes down with voters?
Well it might at least improve western birthrates and get them back above replacement level! Even the GOP isn't yet proposing that however
Oh, then you advocate that we support the "preserve the fatherhood rights of rapists" campaign, do you?
That is a completely separate issue to contraception use and you know it, though of course even rapists remain the bioligical father if it produces a child, even if they are restricted on access rights
The thread is about abortion as well. And you still havent' addressed the matter properly - though your comment about access rights can be read both ways.
Yesterday trans, today abortion, the day before euthanasia. What’s in store for tomorrow’s edition of the year 11 ethics and religion syllabus? We’ve not done drug legalisation yet.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
It’s about definitions. To some people, a statement such as “only born women can be women” is an attempt to stir up hatred. To others it is a point of view.
Who decides what is hatred, and what is stirring it up?
The courts, in the end, and it will probably be a mess.
There is a 'reasonableness' test throughout the act. This is common in UK legal traditions. It applies legally where life throws up an infinity of circumstances which in the end courts may have to decide something which is situational.
If, to change the subject, the Rwanda Bill said 'a court must declare Rwanda a safe country when it is reasonable to do so' then a major evil of the bill would disappear.
Same here. A group of people shouting the F word in unison at a pop festival is quite different from a single person walking into a church on Sunday morning and shouting it during the celebration of the mass.
Betting Post: I expect a big Labour win but I think the market might be skewed too much that way now. Cons to get 150/199 seats is 6 on the exchange. I like that for value so I've done some.
If they lose by ,say, 13 points and the LDs are on 10 or so 150 to 199 is quite likely. Certainly there's a better than 16% chance of that sort of result imo
Edit - the more 'landslide' is priced in, the more 'stop Labour having unlimited power/safe to vote protest' gears up
Betting Post: I expect a big Labour win but I think the market might be skewed too much that way now. Cons to get 150/199 seats is 6 on the exchange. I like that for value so I've done some.
Free money in my view. People are ignoring the large store of pumped hydro resource currently stored in the Dinorwig station of Reform UK.
Betting Post: I expect a big Labour win but I think the market might be skewed too much that way now. Cons to get 150/199 seats is 6 on the exchange. I like that for value so I've done some.
That's a good price, but I've done 200 + CP seat losses (from 2019 seats base) at 1.85 (now 1.49). So that implies 164 or less.
This is standard cruise line practice. Guests who go ashore on their own trip are told be be back aboard at a set time and the ship will not wait. If you are on an organised excursion the tour company will be in communication with the ship and can ask for a delay if there are issues e.g bus breakdown, traffic jams.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
But it was. Under Ken Clark.
And they did. Under Gordon Brown.
If you are going to let the Conservatives off the hook for the state of the economy after COVID and Ukraine (notwithstanding the Trussterf***) surely you need to give Brown a free pass for the Lehmann Bros crash of 2008, and you forget Brown saved the World economy- singlehandedly!
Covid and Ukraine (and the consequent cost of living crisis) were events not of their making but to which the Government had to react.
Brown was warned of the consequences of his action - that then came back to bite him on the arse. If anybody deserves credit for reacting wisely it was probably Darling.
Darling as CST devised the tripartite regime in the first place...
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Which as I said would still be less restrictive than Poland's abortion law for instance
Since when was that a model for the US ?
It would be for conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals
Evangelicals only stared caring about abortion after right-wing politicians sought to make it a wedge issue in the 1970s.
Roman Catholics notionally oppose contraception. Do you want to see how banning contraception goes down with voters?
Well it might at least improve western birthrates and get them back above replacement level! Even the GOP isn't yet proposing that however
Oh, then you advocate that we support the "preserve the fatherhood rights of rapists" campaign, do you?
That is a completely separate issue to contraception use and you know it, though of course even rapists remain the bioligical father if it produces a child, even if they are restricted on access rights
The thread is about abortion as well. And you still havent' addressed the matter properly - though your comment about access rights can be read both ways.
Yesterday trans, today abortion, the day before euthanasia. What’s in store for tomorrow’s edition of the year 11 ethics and religion syllabus? We’ve not done drug legalisation yet.
Time we did. There are 4/5 options in outline: Criminalise both supply and demand Ditto supply Ditto demand Ditto neither and Treat entirely as a medical issue.
Our current position - 20 years for big suppliers but users are treated trivially - makes the least sense of all the options. All the other options make some sense.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
I do have to point out that her standing is for a very specific cause: the ability to say that somebody born a man is a man permanently. She is not standing for the right of the racist, the ageist, the antisemite, the Islamophobe, the eugenicist, the purebody absolutist to speak their truth. As I keep saying, free speech does not exist in the UK and the only debate is about which speech should be suppressed and which should not. JKR's campaign should be seen in that light.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Which as I said would still be less restrictive than Poland's abortion law for instance
Since when was that a model for the US ?
It would be for conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals
Evangelicals only stared caring about abortion after right-wing politicians sought to make it a wedge issue in the 1970s.
Roman Catholics notionally oppose contraception. Do you want to see how banning contraception goes down with voters?
Well it might at least improve western birthrates and get them back above replacement level! Even the GOP isn't yet proposing that however
Oh, then you advocate that we support the "preserve the fatherhood rights of rapists" campaign, do you?
That is a completely separate issue to contraception use and you know it, though of course even rapists remain the bioligical father if it produces a child, even if they are restricted on access rights
The thread is about abortion as well. And you still havent' addressed the matter properly - though your comment about access rights can be read both ways.
Yesterday trans, today abortion, the day before euthanasia. What’s in store for tomorrow’s edition of the year 11 ethics and religion syllabus? We’ve not done drug legalisation yet.
Time we did. There are 4/5 options in outline: Criminalise both supply and demand Ditto supply Ditto demand Ditto neither and Treat entirely as a medical issue.
Our current position - 20 years for big suppliers but users are treated trivially - makes the least sense of all the options. All the other options make some sense.
I’m not sure decriminalising supply but punishing users is the greatest idea either.
You get stopped and searched by the bill and they find some cannabis. “That for your own consumption mate?”, “er no, absolutely not, I’m planning on selling it later”, “all right then, on your way”.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
I was had by a local cafe/wine bar whose April Fools post was to announce they were switching to be a shish bar, because the cost of food was too high. So many places have shut down due to high costs that it was all too believable.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
Trump will win Texas again even if he loses nationally again.
There are also lots of anti abortion evangelicals in Texas
There are also lots of women in Texas.
There's also a woman in Texas who is suing the District Attorney of Palm Beach for $1m because she was arrested and locked up in prison for 2 days for using a Federally Approved morning-after pill on a charge of "murder".
The lawsuit filed by Lizelle Gonzalez in federal court Thursday comes a month after the state bar of Texas fined and disciplined the district attorney in rural Starr county over the case in 2022, when Gonzalez was charged with murder in “the death of an individual by self-induced abortion”.
She had been identified as a murder suspect to the media.
There was no such crime in existence, as abortion was exempt in Texas from murder charges. I have no idea about changes in the future, but this is how deranged they have become.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
I was had by a local cafe/wine bar whose April Fools post was to announce they were switching to be a shish bar, because the cost of food was too high. So many places have shut down due to high costs that it was all too believable.
The secret to survival is I think a combination of a few factors:
- Free family labour, a neat trick known to Chinese takeaways for decades. This place was run and apparently entirely staffed by two elderly ladies (sisters I think) and a husband of one of them in the kitchen. - Freehold, bought many years ago and unmortgaged - Little or no choice, using affordable ingredients, and high turnover: French lunch venues have mastered the menu du jour. 12.30 hits, all the tradesmen come in from their chantiers, all eat and drink the same, out by 1.30, bish bash bosh job done. - No expenditure on marketing, decoration, sprucing the place up or any of that fancy gubbins. Just food and drink.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
I was had by a local cafe/wine bar whose April Fools post was to announce they were switching to be a shish bar, because the cost of food was too high. So many places have shut down due to high costs that it was all too believable.
The secret to survival is I think a combination of a few factors:
- Free family labour, a neat trick known to Chinese takeaways for decades. This place was run and apparently entirely staffed by two elderly ladies (sisters I think) and a husband of one of them in the kitchen. - Freehold, bought many years ago and unmortgaged - Little or no choice, using affordable ingredients, and high turnover: French lunch venues have mastered the menu du jour. 12.30 hits, all the tradesmen come in from their chantiers, all eat and drink the same, out by 1.30, bish bash bosh job done. - No expenditure on marketing, decoration, sprucing the place up or any of that fancy gubbins. Just food and drink.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
I do have to point out that her standing is for a very specific cause: the ability to say that somebody born a man is a man permanently. She is not standing for the right of the racist, the ageist, the antisemite, the Islamophobe, the eugenicist, the purebody absolutist to speak their truth. As I keep saying, free speech does not exist in the UK and the only debate is about which speech should be suppressed and which should not. JKR's campaign should be seen in that light.
"A man's a man for all that" should be the Scottish national anthem.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
I do have to point out that her standing is for a very specific cause: the ability to say that somebody born a man is a man permanently. She is not standing for the right of the racist, the ageist, the antisemite, the Islamophobe, the eugenicist, the purebody absolutist to speak their truth. As I keep saying, free speech does not exist in the UK and the only debate is about which speech should be suppressed and which should not. JKR's campaign should be seen in that light.
"A man's a man for all that" should be the Scottish national anthem.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
After 250cl I'm surprised you can type. Bargain, though.
This is standard cruise line practice. Guests who go ashore on their own trip are told be be back aboard at a set time and the ship will not wait. If you are on an organised excursion the tour company will be in communication with the ship and can ask for a delay if there are issues e.g bus breakdown, traffic jams.
YouTube is full of videos of cruise ships leaving passengers ashore when returning back late.
Ships need to keep to schedule. It is standard practice.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
I cannot wait for our standard few weeks of leisure (for me and daughter) in Limoges in August, while my other half does writerly things.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
I do have to point out that her standing is for a very specific cause: the ability to say that somebody born a man is a man permanently. She is not standing for the right of the racist, the ageist, the antisemite, the Islamophobe, the eugenicist, the purebody absolutist to speak their truth. As I keep saying, free speech does not exist in the UK and the only debate is about which speech should be suppressed and which should not. JKR's campaign should be seen in that light.
"A man's a man for all that" should be the Scottish national anthem.
coughcougForIWillWalkOneThousandMilescoughcough
Only 1,000 miles? Utterly lacking in ambition, those Scots ...
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
It’s about definitions. To some people, a statement such as “only born women can be women” is an attempt to stir up hatred. To others it is a point of view.
Who decides what is hatred, and what is stirring it up?
The courts, in the end, and it will probably be a mess.
I suspect that is what JKR is doing, knowingly, to try to push the law to see what happens.
Nothing she said in the tweet thread, which I linked here yesterday and it triggered Horse, was hateful or incorrect. However she knows the batshit TRA's who stalk her every tweet will be reporting it.
I suspect there will be alot of reporting and trying to get people to submit reports, to see how the system reacts. The law needs some test cases.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
I do have to point out that her standing is for a very specific cause: the ability to say that somebody born a man is a man permanently. She is not standing for the right of the racist, the ageist, the antisemite, the Islamophobe, the eugenicist, the purebody absolutist to speak their truth. As I keep saying, free speech does not exist in the UK and the only debate is about which speech should be suppressed and which should not. JKR's campaign should be seen in that light.
Care is needed here. The Scottish act is about what is, and what is not a crime. it has no other remit. This is, rightly, completely different from what incurs social disapproval, ostracism, being black-balled from the Garrick etc. Society as a whole decides, fluidly and constantly, what is approved.
Lots of people confuse the idea of free speech with the idea that their particular bits of free speech should be without adverse consequence, but this of course is nonsense. All sorts of wicked things can be said, written and placed on social media without them being crimes. That does not mean that your employer, business associates, neighbours and the media have to be neutral in their response and actions in return.
US election - Morning Consult polling (comparison with January):
All voters: Biden 44% (40%), Trump 43% (45%) - Biden moves up from -5% to +1%
Independent voters: Biden 34% (28%) Trump 34% (38%) - Biden moves up from -10% to level pegging.
Trump has had a bad couple of months. The next couple of months he's going to be the first ex-US President to be in court on felony charges, for each and every day from 15th April for maybe six weeks.
We'll never know, but how many would not have voted for him in 2016 if they'd known he was having a fling with a porn star whilst his wife was in hospital having his child? Paying somebody to hush that up is proper election interference...
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Your middle para - you'd like to see the back of all 'hate speech' laws then?
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Traffic must be up now though - Trump made 77 posts there on Easter Sunday alone!
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
I was had by a local cafe/wine bar whose April Fools post was to announce they were switching to be a shish bar, because the cost of food was too high. So many places have shut down due to high costs that it was all too believable.
The secret to survival is I think a combination of a few factors:
- Free family labour, a neat trick known to Chinese takeaways for decades. This place was run and apparently entirely staffed by two elderly ladies (sisters I think) and a husband of one of them in the kitchen. - Freehold, bought many years ago and unmortgaged - Little or no choice, using affordable ingredients, and high turnover: French lunch venues have mastered the menu du jour. 12.30 hits, all the tradesmen come in from their chantiers, all eat and drink the same, out by 1.30, bish bash bosh job done. - No expenditure on marketing, decoration, sprucing the place up or any of that fancy gubbins. Just food and drink.
Food as feed vs food as a social 'event'
The paradox being that, by being relatively cheap, that sort of eating out becomes social and communal, because you can do it more often. You see the same in Spain- the menu del dia was, I think, originally a Francoist decree, but it's stuck because it's so damn civilised. (As well as being efficient to prepare and serve. Sometimes, choice isn't all it's cracked up to be.)
Very American for that couple to be crediting God with having stranded them there because they were the only ones with a credit card and so able to help the old lady injured with a concussion, while never wondering why God gave her a concussion in the first place…
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
After 250cl I'm surprised you can type. Bargain, though.
That took me a few seconds. I suspect I wouldn't be able to comprehend what a phone was let alone type
This is standard cruise line practice. Guests who go ashore on their own trip are told be be back aboard at a set time and the ship will not wait. If you are on an organised excursion the tour company will be in communication with the ship and can ask for a delay if there are issues e.g bus breakdown, traffic jams.
YouTube is full of videos of cruise ships leaving passengers ashore when returning back late.
Ships need to keep to schedule. It is standard practice.
Confined to the ship for 30 or 60 days and a fine was standard in the Navy for missing muster if the ship was under sailing orders. They also take the cost of getting you back to the ship from your pay. Hard fucking luck if it's on a passage to Montevideo.
It happened all the time on carriers and we usually lost 1 or 2 at every port.
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
After 250cl I'm surprised you can type. Bargain, though.
That took me a few seconds. I suspect I wouldn't be able to comprehend what a phone was let alone type
Heartwarming news from the central France “cost of living crisis, what cost of living crisis” world today.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
After 250cl I'm surprised you can type. Bargain, though.
That took me a few seconds. I suspect I wouldn't be able to comprehend what a phone was let alone type
I only noticed because I was preparing a quip about 250ml not being considered a 'carafe' but more a 'verre' over here, and had to delete it.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Your middle para - you'd like to see the back of all 'hate speech' laws then?
I think that hate speech laws should be reformed to make perfect sense. Obviously
1) anything I say is protected 2) anything said in opposition is hate speech and should be cause for premature cremation.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Traffic must be up now though - Trump made 77 posts there on Easter Sunday alone!
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Your middle para - you'd like to see the back of all 'hate speech' laws then?
I'm not a free speech absolutist. Where you can show that speech is inciting violence then I think it is reasonable for the law to intervene. Similarly for speech that amounts to harassment.
In these cases the speech is linked to a harm that is distinct from the speech itself. Clearly there's going to be a big grey zone as to where you draw the line. Some would argue that the Scottish hate speech law only covers speech that would be covered by my two examples of inciting violence and harassment - but I think the difference in degree is sufficient to be a difference in type.
Ted Cruz in Texas is in a real fight to retain his Senate seat - latest polling has him tied with his Democrat challenger. He is at 51% unfavourables with Independents.
Down to his absolutist stance on abortion.
2024 is supposed to be a very difficult set of elections for the Democrats to retain the Senate. Losing Texas wasn't supposed to be in the mix... But state protections for abortion are on the ballot - and are likely to be a major factor in turnout.
How does that read across to polling for the Presidency?
I was wondering about split tickets a few weeks ago and was scornfully told that these days as goes the Senate so goes the Presidency.
Well, if Cruz loses in Texas, on that logic, so would Trump. In which case TSE would be burbling about stepmoms on Pornhub.
It is showing that abortion is utterly toxic for Republicans. We had the Special Election in a Red (and Trump) seat in Alabama where the issue delivered a 25% Democrat majority. Trump is claiming for the adulation of his MAGA base that he delivered the overthrow of Rowe vs Wade. In the wider population, however, that may be the single biggest factor in Trump's defeat in November.
It is not going to go away as an issue of salience in the next six or seven months.
In Florida, even the 15 week time limit they now have with DeSantis is actually still higher than the 12 week abortion time limit Italy, Germany and Ireland have
Which as I said would still be less restrictive than Poland's abortion law for instance
Since when was that a model for the US ?
It would be for conservative Roman Catholics and evangelicals
Evangelicals only stared caring about abortion after right-wing politicians sought to make it a wedge issue in the 1970s.
Roman Catholics notionally oppose contraception. Do you want to see how banning contraception goes down with voters?
Well it might at least improve western birthrates and get them back above replacement level! Even the GOP isn't yet proposing that however
Oh, then you advocate that we support the "preserve the fatherhood rights of rapists" campaign, do you?
That is a completely separate issue to contraception use and you know it, though of course even rapists remain the bioligical father if it produces a child, even if they are restricted on access rights
The thread is about abortion as well. And you still havent' addressed the matter properly - though your comment about access rights can be read both ways.
Yesterday trans, today abortion, the day before euthanasia. What’s in store for tomorrow’s edition of the year 11 ethics and religion syllabus? We’ve not done drug legalisation yet.
Time we did. There are 4/5 options in outline: Criminalise both supply and demand Ditto supply Ditto demand Ditto neither and Treat entirely as a medical issue.
Our current position - 20 years for big suppliers but users are treated trivially - makes the least sense of all the options. All the other options make some sense.
I’m not sure decriminalising supply but punishing users is the greatest idea either.
You get stopped and searched by the bill and they find some cannabis. “That for your own consumption mate?”, “er no, absolutely not, I’m planning on selling it later”, “all right then, on your way”.
How about charging everyone caught in possession with supply, unless they name their supplier?
World Central Kirchens says it will have to pause ors operations so 100 tonnes per day of food will no longer be delivered. Over 250 aid workers now killed but only a few are British so .......
Very American for that couple to be crediting God with having stranded them there because they were the only ones with a credit card and so able to help the old lady injured with a concussion, while never wondering why God gave her a concussion in the first place…
I wonder if God will get them their money back from the others ?
BBC leading with Israel killing of British Aid workers despite pre agreeing the route with Israel.
Cameron and Sunak demand answers
Had a busy 24 hours Israel.
Killing aid workers in Gaza and diplomats in Syria. Possibly looking to widen the theatre of conflict. I am sure the IDF will investigate themselves and find themselves to be not at fault.
BBC leading with Israel killing of British Aid workers despite pre agreeing the route with Israel.
Cameron and Sunak demand answers
Had a busy 24 hours Israel.
Killing aid workers in Gaza and diplomats in Syria. Possibly looking to widen the theatre of conflict. I am sure the IDF will investigate themselves and find themselves to be not at fault.
The vehicles were clearly targeted (presumably mistakenly). Given their locations, three separate "caught in the crossfire" incidents is deeply implausible.
The geolocation was done by matching scenes in the photos with satellite images.
One image, for example, shows a Toyota Hilux with a jagged hole in its roof, bearing the WCK logo. A low wall, a pylon, a section of woodland and two distinct roofs can be seen in the background.
BBC Verify has matched these features with a part of the coastal road, Al-Rashid, in central Gaza.
Separate photos showing a different Toyota Hilux depict palm trees, a distinctive archway and a tall red roofed building in the background. These features place the SUV about 800m further north on the same road, West of Deir al-Balah.
A third vehicle is in a patch of open-ground to the south, about 100m off this road.
All three vehicles are spread across a distance of just under 2.5kms (1.5 miles)...
Very American for that couple to be crediting God with having stranded them there because they were the only ones with a credit card and so able to help the old lady injured with a concussion, while never wondering why God gave her a concussion in the first place…
Strange behaviour by the Captain.
The ship was still in port, and they were turned away at the boarding ramp by the sound of it.
Very American for that couple to be crediting God with having stranded them there because they were the only ones with a credit card and so able to help the old lady injured with a concussion, while never wondering why God gave her a concussion in the first place…
You still have to be a special order of arsehole to not let them board - when they have turned up before the ship sails.
I was once bounced off a Lufthansa flight from Sana'a because we arrived at the check-in gate 1 minute past the allotted desk closure. Wouldn't have been so bad, but it was the last flight out before Christmas.
The Lufthansa official was clearly enjoying his power.
Until our agent's tiny Mr Fixit made it a mission to get us home for Christmas. This was dead of night, mind. 20 minutes later, he returned with an equally tiny chap, but who had medal ribbons down to his knees. "These people - on this flight now - OR IT DOESN'T LEAVE...."
Somehow our Mr Fixit had found the head of the Air Force. And what he knew was that if the flight got blocked, the Lufthansa official was spending Christmas in Sana'a. With us.
Despite us now being half an hour beyond check in, he somehow managed to find sufficient flexibility in the system to give us boarding cards. How he must have hated our shit-eating grins....
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Your middle para - you'd like to see the back of all 'hate speech' laws then?
I'm not a free speech absolutist. Where you can show that speech is inciting violence then I think it is reasonable for the law to intervene. Similarly for speech that amounts to harassment.
In these cases the speech is linked to a harm that is distinct from the speech itself. Clearly there's going to be a big grey zone as to where you draw the line. Some would argue that the Scottish hate speech law only covers speech that would be covered by my two examples of inciting violence and harassment - but I think the difference in degree is sufficient to be a difference in type.
How do you define harassment?
Does it only count if abuse is specifically directed at someone, or does it count if they can read it incidentally?
ie the difference between "@LostPassword is" and "LostPassword is"
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
Whipping is good for democracy. How do you know what you’re voting for if there are no political parties? People can come across as all fluffy and then have horrendous views.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
Comments
It’s many things, but a government spending and planning on spending ever vaster sums on social services and medical provision isn’t exactly doing the Scrouge.
Personally, I think that much of the money is misdirected. The major problem seems to be a lack of interest in pushing through changes. The default in government is the Dead Hand system.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/08/we-need-more-bureaucracy/
And they did. Under Gordon Brown.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Apparantly they know its duff but the party won't accept a defensive strategy lower down the chain and 'some of our red wall polling' blah blah blah
They are fecking nutjobs
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171
..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under
Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are.
And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
The retention of the hereditaries after 1999 was only ever intended as a short-term compromise until a full reform was worked out (but then you can say the same about everything from 1911 onwards).
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
@NastyaStognei on how Russia is shifting blame for the Moscow terror attack – and Russians seem to believe it
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1775098574126145758
'Adam Tomkins, a former Tory MSP and convener of Holyrood’s justice committee who was closely involved with the passage of the bill in 2021, said: “Asserting that sex is a biological fact or that it is not changed just by virtue of the gender by which someone chooses to identify is not and never can be a hate crime under this legislation.”
Tomkins and others have warned that social media postings and some reporting on the act has wrongly suggested that it is criminalising comments that are merely offensive to others.'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/31/scotlands-new-hate-act-what-does-it-cover-and-why-is-it-controversial
Way before even the current Conservative Party was founded in the mid 19th century the Tory Party was the Party of Crown, Established Church and the landed classes (including the hereditary peerage).
It was also Lord Cranborne who successively negotiated with Blair in 1999 to save about 90 hereditary peers, even if it annoyed Hague at the time
https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/02/cruise-ship-passengers-abandoned-190-miles-off-african-coast-20570836/
Plan your campaign according to where the front line actually is (say, seats 150-225) and you are conceding defeat before you even start and throwing over 100 of your colleagues to the wolves.
Plan your campaign according to where you would like the front line to be (say, seats 300-375) and they still fall and you are taking finite resources from the actual front line, so they fall as well.
Millions might shriek in public about how a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose (including women).
But then in the polling booth, they suddenly remember that they do want to chose; and vote the other way.
Then the few who are genuinely 'pro-life' are all confused when they only get 6 votes for them.......
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
It is not as black and white as that
Country A is at war with Country B (sorry conducting a special military operation against country
Non state actor C attacks Country A.
Country A's leaders decide lying and blaming it all on Country B is a big winner...! Hurrah! Everyone gets pissed off at Country B.
Non-State Actor C then attacks again... and again... and again.... After all, the security services in Country A have been told to look out for Country B citizens conducting the attacks, so don't bother checking anyone else. Why would they need to? [1]
Everyone's a winner, except Country A and Country B.......
[1] You could, I suppose, lie to the public but tell the security services that it was Non State Actor C that did it, but that'll eventually leak out, then you look like lying toe-rags.
Brown was warned of the consequences of his action - that then came back to bite him on the arse. If anybody deserves credit for reacting wisely it was probably Darling.
Who decides what is hatred, and what is stirring it up?
The courts, in the end, and it will probably be a mess.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
I'd wager this 'red wall polling' is going to be slightly better returns/lower gaps in those areas that have been moving away from Labour over the last 15 or more years (Bishop Auckland, Darlington, the Old coal fields etc) but they will still face the same problem getting their vote out even if Labour are 'gaining less'.
The Houchen result should show us how effective their GOTV is in that part of the world
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
You are having a laugh of course.
If, to change the subject, the Rwanda Bill said 'a court must declare Rwanda a safe country when it is reasonable to do so' then a major evil of the bill would disappear.
Same here. A group of people shouting the F word in unison at a pop festival is quite different from a single person walking into a church on Sunday morning and shouting it during the celebration of the mass.
Edit - the more 'landslide' is priced in, the more 'stop Labour having unlimited power/safe to vote protest' gears up
Criminalise both supply and demand
Ditto supply
Ditto demand
Ditto neither
and
Treat entirely as a medical issue.
Our current position - 20 years for big suppliers but users are treated trivially - makes the least sense of all the options. All the other options make some sense.
Waiting for a shop to reopen at 1.30 I ventured into a local caff in La Roche Vineuse where I’ve just been treated to a menu du jour of salad and egg mayonnaise, roast pork with those long-cooked garlicky green beans, vast amounts of bread, a cheese course, crepes for pudding and a coffee, plus a 250cl carafe of red wine. €15.50.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
You get stopped and searched by the bill and they find some cannabis. “That for your own consumption mate?”, “er no, absolutely not, I’m planning on selling it later”, “all right then, on your way”.
The lawsuit filed by Lizelle Gonzalez in federal court Thursday comes a month after the state bar of Texas fined and disciplined the district attorney in rural Starr county over the case in 2022, when Gonzalez was charged with murder in “the death of an individual by self-induced abortion”.
She had been identified as a murder suspect to the media.
There was no such crime in existence, as abortion was exempt in Texas from murder charges. I have no idea about changes in the future, but this is how deranged they have become.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/30/texas-woman-abortion-murder-sues
- Free family labour, a neat trick known to Chinese takeaways for decades. This place was run and apparently entirely staffed by two elderly ladies (sisters I think) and a husband of one of them in the kitchen.
- Freehold, bought many years ago and unmortgaged
- Little or no choice, using affordable ingredients, and high turnover: French lunch venues have mastered the menu du jour. 12.30 hits, all the tradesmen come in from their chantiers, all eat and drink the same, out by 1.30, bish bash bosh job done.
- No expenditure on marketing, decoration, sprucing the place up or any of that fancy gubbins. Just food and drink.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
Ships need to keep to schedule. It is standard practice.
Nothing she said in the tweet thread, which I linked here yesterday and it triggered Horse, was hateful or incorrect. However she knows the batshit TRA's who stalk her every tweet will be reporting it.
I suspect there will be alot of reporting and trying to get people to submit reports, to see how the system reacts. The law needs some test cases.
Lots of people confuse the idea of free speech with the idea that their particular bits of free speech should be without adverse consequence, but this of course is nonsense. All sorts of wicked things can be said, written and placed on social media without them being crimes. That does not mean that your employer, business associates, neighbours and the media have to be neutral in their response and actions in return.
New ceasefire proposal sent to Hamas.
All voters: Biden 44% (40%), Trump 43% (45%) - Biden moves up from -5% to +1%
Independent voters: Biden 34% (28%) Trump 34% (38%) - Biden moves up from -10% to level pegging.
Trump has had a bad couple of months. The next couple of months he's going to be the first ex-US President to be in court on felony charges, for each and every day from 15th April for maybe six weeks.
We'll never know, but how many would not have voted for him in 2016 if they'd known he was having a fling with a porn star whilst his wife was in hospital having his child? Paying somebody to hush that up is proper election interference...
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
It happened all the time on carriers and we usually lost 1 or 2 at every port.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
1) anything I say is protected
2) anything said in opposition is hate speech and should be cause for premature cremation.
Cameron and Sunak demand answers
In these cases the speech is linked to a harm that is distinct from the speech itself. Clearly there's going to be a big grey zone as to where you draw the line. Some would argue that the Scottish hate speech law only covers speech that would be covered by my two examples of inciting violence and harassment - but I think the difference in degree is sufficient to be a difference in type.
Finland shooting: Child held after pupil aged 12 shot dead at school in Vantaa
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68712104
Over 250 aid workers now killed but only a few are British so .......
Killing aid workers in Gaza and diplomats in Syria. Possibly looking to widen the theatre of conflict. I am sure the IDF will investigate themselves and find themselves to be not at fault.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-68710949
..BBC Verify has been studying images of three heavily-damaged vehicles.
The geolocation was done by matching scenes in the photos with satellite images.
One image, for example, shows a Toyota Hilux with a jagged hole in its roof, bearing the WCK logo. A low wall, a pylon, a section of woodland and two distinct roofs can be seen in the background.
BBC Verify has matched these features with a part of the coastal road, Al-Rashid, in central Gaza.
Separate photos showing a different Toyota Hilux depict palm trees, a distinctive archway and a tall red roofed building in the background. These features place the SUV about 800m further north on the same road, West of Deir al-Balah.
A third vehicle is in a patch of open-ground to the south, about 100m off this road.
All three vehicles are spread across a distance of just under 2.5kms (1.5 miles)...
The ship was still in port, and they were turned away at the boarding ramp by the sound of it.
That sounds expensive for the cruise company.
I was once bounced off a Lufthansa flight from Sana'a because we arrived at the check-in gate 1 minute past the allotted desk closure. Wouldn't have been so bad, but it was the last flight out before Christmas.
The Lufthansa official was clearly enjoying his power.
Until our agent's tiny Mr Fixit made it a mission to get us home for Christmas. This was dead of night, mind. 20 minutes later, he returned with an equally tiny chap, but who had medal ribbons down to his knees. "These people - on this flight now - OR IT DOESN'T LEAVE...."
Somehow our Mr Fixit had found the head of the Air Force. And what he knew was that if the flight got blocked, the Lufthansa official was spending Christmas in Sana'a. With us.
Despite us now being half an hour beyond check in, he somehow managed to find sufficient flexibility in the system to give us boarding cards. How he must have hated our shit-eating grins....
Does it only count if abuse is specifically directed at someone, or does it count if they can read it incidentally?
ie the difference between "@LostPassword is" and "LostPassword is"