I assume, unlike Truss, Sunak won’t be jettisoned. Mostly because Sunak is still basically the Tory policy consensus in a way Truss wasn’t, and so it kind of makes clear the issue isn’t just the messenger, but also the message.
From what I'm reading most Tory MPs have given up. They're either standing down at the next election or just going through the motions. Compared with Johnson and Truss there probably aren't enough Tory MPs who care any more and can be bothered to send in a letter to get rid of Sunak.
'Truss Levels' sounds like Norfolk's answer to the Somerset Levels.
It brought to my mind visions of an exam curriculum purged of the indoctrinations of the anti-growth coalition. "What did you get in your Truss Levels?"
Sounds like something I. K. Brunel used for that dodgy railway bridge at Nuneham Courtenay. The original wooden one, which didn't last very long either ...
Re: the Progressive Conservative wipe-out in 1993 Canadian federal election, which saw the party go from governing majority to wretched rump, the two PC survivors were elected solely on their personal appeal in their own parliamentary ridings:
> Jean Charest of Quebec, only member of PM Kim Campbell's cabinet to survive; he'd lost the PC leadership election to succeed "Lyin' Brian" Mulroney to KC who was BM's hand-picked successor/fall girl; Charest subsequently switched to provincial politics as leader of Quebec Liberal Party and served as premier; and
> Elsie Wayne of New Brunswick, who was NOT an incumbent, but rather the popular mayor of Saint John NB (not to be confused with St. John's NL)
So suggest that scenario with TWO front-line UK Tories surviving similar melt-down, is perhaps a bridge too far; at least one would probably be a nationally-unknown local hero like EW.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
I assume, unlike Truss, Sunak won’t be jettisoned. Mostly because Sunak is still basically the Tory policy consensus in a way Truss wasn’t, and so it kind of makes clear the issue isn’t just the messenger, but also the message.
From what I'm reading most Tory MPs have given up. They're either standing down at the next election or just going through the motions. Compared with Johnson and Truss there probably aren't enough Tory MPs who care any more and can be bothered to send in a letter to get rid of Sunak.
It seems to me that nobody wants to get it at this moment (nor do they want their preferred successor to get it) as they'd be doomed to heavy defeat. So the only options on the table would be a caretaker PM.
But Sunak essentially already is a caretaker PM - he's reasonably within the current party mainstream, somewhat bland, doesn't scare the markets, and has a pretty limited shelf life. There's no meaningful case to replace one caretaker with another. There would only be a point to get someone who might change the weather, and all of the people who just conceivably might are either outside the Commons or sitting it out until 2025.
As you say, a reasonable proportion also no longer have skin in the game - they've announced their retirement or have decided but are yet to announce.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
I understand your point but the problem with all historical analogies is that they call apart when examined too closely.
The area of historic Mandatory Palestine, now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, functions in many respects as a single entity. Power, water, telecoms (Israeli Ministry of Communications has control over the cellular communications and technology Palestinians may build, which has been limited to 2G) are all essentially those of a single polity. The West Bank and Gaza, to my mind, resemble Bantustans, or the way Native American reservations used to be (but are not now) run within that polity. They are basically reservations for Palestinians, the residents of which have no recognised citizenship. That's where I see the parallel with Apartheid South Africa, not the treatment of Israeli-Arabs, which is a separate matter.
Yes and I can see the parallels but in a way it lets Israel off the hook. Military occupation isn't meant to last this long but it can be done humanely. Allowing civilian settlement of occupied land is an obvious breach of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, Israel is completely in the wrong for allowing it to happen. They have also allowed the Israeli residents of the West Bank to terrorise the Palestinian residents, that is again, a fundamental breach of the occupying forces' duty to the occupied population.
But Israel now cannot step back, they are as trapped by the current situation as the Palestinians are. They cannot withdraw, the backlash would topple any Israeli government that tried. They will not be militarily defeated and they wouldn't have the Western support to forcibly ethnic cleanse the whole of the West Bank. About the only plan they have is more of the same, cripple the Palestinians just a little bit more and hope they will accept some sort of Bantustan status but at least it kicks the can down the road for a few more years.
I assume, unlike Truss, Sunak won’t be jettisoned. Mostly because Sunak is still basically the Tory policy consensus in a way Truss wasn’t, and so it kind of makes clear the issue isn’t just the messenger, but also the message.
From what I'm reading most Tory MPs have given up. They're either standing down at the next election or just going through the motions. Compared with Johnson and Truss there probably aren't enough Tory MPs who care any more and can be bothered to send in a letter to get rid of Sunak.
It seems to me that nobody wants to get it at this moment (nor do they want their preferred successor to get it) as they'd be doomed to heavy defeat. So the only options on the table would be a caretaker PM.
But Sunak essentially already is a caretaker PM - he's reasonably within the current party mainstream, somewhat bland, doesn't scare the markets, and has a pretty limited shelf life. There's no meaningful case to replace one caretaker with another. There would only be a point to get someone who might change the weather, and all of the people who just conceivably might are either outside the Commons or sitting it out until 2025.
As you say, a reasonable proportion also no longer have skin in the game - they've announced their retirement or have decided but are yet to announce.
And poor as Sunak is, there's a decent chance that his successor will be worse, depending how you define worse.
Look how many constituencies Labour are estimated to pick up, twice as many as the SNP despite completely equal vote shares. In fact Glasgow ends up completely red, the first time that I can recall my calculator ever giving a region without a single SNP constituency MSP.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
I assume, unlike Truss, Sunak won’t be jettisoned. Mostly because Sunak is still basically the Tory policy consensus in a way Truss wasn’t, and so it kind of makes clear the issue isn’t just the messenger, but also the message.
From what I'm reading most Tory MPs have given up. They're either standing down at the next election or just going through the motions. Compared with Johnson and Truss there probably aren't enough Tory MPs who care any more and can be bothered to send in a letter to get rid of Sunak.
It seems to me that nobody wants to get it at this moment (nor do they want their preferred successor to get it) as they'd be doomed to heavy defeat. So the only options on the table would be a caretaker PM.
But Sunak essentially already is a caretaker PM - he's reasonably within the current party mainstream, somewhat bland, doesn't scare the markets, and has a pretty limited shelf life. There's no meaningful case to replace one caretaker with another. There would only be a point to get someone who might change the weather, and all of the people who just conceivably might are either outside the Commons or sitting it out until 2025.
As you say, a reasonable proportion also no longer have skin in the game - they've announced their retirement or have decided but are yet to announce.
And poor as Sunak is, there's a decent chance that his successor will be worse, depending how you define worse.
They'll stick with Sunak as it's plain the public have had enough of the Tories revolving door of leaders, it'll just worsen their already lamentable position
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Interestingly Jamie Carragher agrees with me and @isam that it is natural that Spurs fans from north London want their own team to lose. Says he was brought up in a city that had a great rivalry too, and he would be the same. Sure, if you are a modern fan from Surrey etc that has no connection with the local area then you won't really understand the hell of going to school/work etc with the other lot. But if you live and work in north London you just don't want the other lot to win the title. "And that is right," says Carragher.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
I assume, unlike Truss, Sunak won’t be jettisoned. Mostly because Sunak is still basically the Tory policy consensus in a way Truss wasn’t, and so it kind of makes clear the issue isn’t just the messenger, but also the message.
From what I'm reading most Tory MPs have given up. They're either standing down at the next election or just going through the motions. Compared with Johnson and Truss there probably aren't enough Tory MPs who care any more and can be bothered to send in a letter to get rid of Sunak.
It seems to me that nobody wants to get it at this moment (nor do they want their preferred successor to get it) as they'd be doomed to heavy defeat. So the only options on the table would be a caretaker PM.
But Sunak essentially already is a caretaker PM - he's reasonably within the current party mainstream, somewhat bland, doesn't scare the markets, and has a pretty limited shelf life. There's no meaningful case to replace one caretaker with another. There would only be a point to get someone who might change the weather, and all of the people who just conceivably might are either outside the Commons or sitting it out until 2025.
As you say, a reasonable proportion also no longer have skin in the game - they've announced their retirement or have decided but are yet to announce.
And poor as Sunak is, there's a decent chance that his successor will be worse, depending how you define worse.
I can only think of a handful of people who could possibly be worse, and most of them are Grant Shapps.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
Yes. Not great for Starmer that Braverman has realised the cruel and counterproductive 2 child benefit cap needs to go and he hasn't, yet.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Interestingly Jamie Carragher agrees with me and @isam that it is natural that Spurs fans from north London want their own team to lose. Says he was brought up in a city that had a great rivalry too, and he would be the same. Sure, if you are a modern fan from Surrey etc that has no connection with the local area then you won't really understand the hell of going to school/work etc with the other lot. But if you live and work in north London you just don't want the other lot to win the title. "And that is right," says Carragher.
He spat at a fourteen year old girl
It is interesting that you're pleased to agree with him
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
The parallels don't work because the situations are so historically different - but are reached for because of their rhetorical power.
If the situation in Israel/Palestine were like apartheid it would, perhaps with a tragic irony, be far more soluble than it actually is, because there'd be a clear answer of a shared polity with some carve outs for the protection of minority ethnic groups against the majority - and merely require a powerful colonialist group to give up political power to that.
But that's not the case in Israel given Jewish history, the reasons for Israel's creation, and the fact most of its residents are or descended themselves from refugees from neighbouring Arab regimes that mistreated Jews. And which in modern times have a spectacularly poor record (even compared to Israel's treatment of Palestinians) of treatment of even Muslims who disagree with those running each country's flavour of nationalism or theocracy.
Alternatively, a two state solution of states with largely equal standing. But that was what the Palestinians/Arabs rejected in 1948 and have repeatedly since on admittedly worse terms after each attempt to get rid of Israel. Hamas and others on the Palestinian side certainly don't want that or a secular shared liberal polity with protections - it's for them an all or nothing proposition that replaces the Jewish state with an entirely Arab one - so it never becomes an option.
So everything is stuck and getting worse for Palestinians. As that rejectionism in turn has strengthened those in Israel who believe their country is just always going to be in a fight for survival against enemies who hate its existence, and that hardens and empowers each side's hardliners in turn.
Broadly successful peace in other conflicts has been either in partition or in convincing different groups who have been at odds to share a polity. Neither appears an easy option here, as Palestinians (and hardline Israelis) reject partition and the Israelis - with good reason - are never going to trust living under majority Arab rule nor support their own destruction.
So forever war it is, with lulls, until some major things change to change those fundamentals.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
I understand your point but the problem with all historical analogies is that they call apart when examined too closely.
The area of historic Mandatory Palestine, now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, functions in many respects as a single entity. Power, water, telecoms (Israeli Ministry of Communications has control over the cellular communications and technology Palestinians may build, which has been limited to 2G) are all essentially those of a single polity. The West Bank and Gaza, to my mind, resemble Bantustans, or the way Native American reservations used to be (but are not now) run within that polity. They are basically reservations for Palestinians, the residents of which have no recognised citizenship. That's where I see the parallel with Apartheid South Africa, not the treatment of Israeli-Arabs, which is a separate matter.
Yes and I can see the parallels but in a way it lets Israel off the hook. Military occupation isn't meant to last this long but it can be done humanely. Allowing civilian settlement of occupied land is an obvious breach of the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, Israel is completely in the wrong for allowing it to happen. They have also allowed the Israeli residents of the West Bank to terrorise the Palestinian residents, that is again, a fundamental breach of the occupying forces' duty to the occupied population.
But Israel now cannot step back, they are as trapped by the current situation as the Palestinians are. They cannot withdraw, the backlash would topple any Israeli government that tried. They will not be militarily defeated and they wouldn't have the Western support to forcibly ethnic cleanse the whole of the West Bank. About the only plan they have is more of the same, cripple the Palestinians just a little bit more and hope they will accept some sort of Bantustan status but at least it kicks the can down the road for a few more years.
From an Israeli point of view, I suspect the best outcome might be some sort of strongman regime emerging. A Hosni Mubarak would be ideal but, honestly, an Assad or an el-Sisi would do the job almost as well.
Someone with no links to Iran, someone who isn't so obviously corrupt as Fatah, and, most of all, someone who they can deal with. They could quietly help prop them up, shower them with money, and hope that in 20-25 years' time, the scars would have healed enough to allow a more direct relationship to develop.
It would be a miserable experience for all involved, but is there any other path out of the current mess for them?
I assume, unlike Truss, Sunak won’t be jettisoned. Mostly because Sunak is still basically the Tory policy consensus in a way Truss wasn’t, and so it kind of makes clear the issue isn’t just the messenger, but also the message.
From what I'm reading most Tory MPs have given up. They're either standing down at the next election or just going through the motions. Compared with Johnson and Truss there probably aren't enough Tory MPs who care any more and can be bothered to send in a letter to get rid of Sunak.
It seems to me that nobody wants to get it at this moment (nor do they want their preferred successor to get it) as they'd be doomed to heavy defeat. So the only options on the table would be a caretaker PM.
But Sunak essentially already is a caretaker PM - he's reasonably within the current party mainstream, somewhat bland, doesn't scare the markets, and has a pretty limited shelf life. There's no meaningful case to replace one caretaker with another. There would only be a point to get someone who might change the weather, and all of the people who just conceivably might are either outside the Commons or sitting it out until 2025.
As you say, a reasonable proportion also no longer have skin in the game - they've announced their retirement or have decided but are yet to announce.
And poor as Sunak is, there's a decent chance that his successor will be worse, depending how you define worse.
I can only think of a handful of people who could possibly be worse, and most of them are Grant Shapps.
Nonsense. There are still several hundred Tory MPs still in Parliament. A fair proportion of whom would stoop to the challenge.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
The parallels don't work because the situations are so historically different - but are reached for because of their rhetorical power.
If the situation in Israel/Palestine were like apartheid it would, perhaps with a tragic irony, be far more soluble than it actually is, because there'd be a clear answer of a shared polity with some carve outs for the protection of minority ethnic groups against the majority - and merely require a powerful colonialist group to give up political power to that.
But that's not the case in Israel given Jewish history, the reasons for Israel's creation, and the fact most of its residents are or descended themselves from refugees from neighbouring Arab regimes that mistreated Jews. And which in modern times have a spectacularly poor record (even compared to Israel's treatment of Palestinians) of treatment of even Muslims who disagree with those running each country's flavour of nationalism or theocracy.
Alternatively, a two state solution of states with largely equal standing. But that was what the Palestinians/Arabs rejected in 1948 and have repeatedly since on admittedly worse terms after each attempt to get rid of Israel. Hamas and others on the Palestinian side certainly don't want that or a secular shared liberal polity with protections - it's for them an all or nothing proposition that replaces the Jewish state with an entirely Arab one - so it never becomes an option.
So everything is stuck and getting worse for Palestinians. As that rejectionism in turn has strengthened those in Israel who believe their country is just always going to be in a fight for survival against enemies who hate its existence, and that hardens and empowers each side's hardliners in turn.
Broadly successful peace in other conflicts has been either in partition or in convincing different groups who have been at odds to share a polity. Neither appears an easy option here, as Palestinians (and hardline Israelis) reject partition and the Israelis - with good reason - are never going to trust living under majority Arab rule nor support their own destruction.
So forever war it is, with lulls, until some major things change to change those fundamentals.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
O'NEILL
Ahem. Yes. Apols.
Heather Hallet had a right old go at O'Neill today, but getting on the wrong side of a British Baroness won't do her any harm in the long run.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
Yes. Not great for Starmer that Braverman has realised the cruel and counterproductive 2 child benefit cap needs to go and he hasn't, yet.
Worse for the Tories. They introduced it and are standing by it. Great that Braverman’s seen the light of day on this one issue but this is a Tory policy and they own it. There is an obsession on this board to link everything back to Starmer as if this were some brilliant tactical manoeuvre by Cruella to outflank him.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
Yes. Not great for Starmer that Braverman has realised the cruel and counterproductive 2 child benefit cap needs to go and he hasn't, yet.
Worse for the Tories. They introduced it and are standing by it. Great that Braverman’s seen the light of day on this one issue but this is a Tory policy and they own it. There is an obsession on this board to link everything back to Starmer as if this were some brilliant tactical manoeuvre by Cruella to outflank him.
I don't care though. I want the 2 child cap policy removed. Braverman won't remove it; Starmer might and I strongly hope he does.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
The parallels don't work because the situations are so historically different - but are reached for because of their rhetorical power.
If the situation in Israel/Palestine were like apartheid it would, perhaps with a tragic irony, be far more soluble than it actually is, because there'd be a clear answer of a shared polity with some carve outs for the protection of minority ethnic groups against the majority - and merely require a powerful colonialist group to give up political power to that.
But that's not the case in Israel given Jewish history, the reasons for Israel's creation, and the fact most of its residents are or descended themselves from refugees from neighbouring Arab regimes that mistreated Jews. And which in modern times have a spectacularly poor record (even compared to Israel's treatment of Palestinians) of treatment of even Muslims who disagree with those running each country's flavour of nationalism or theocracy.
Alternatively, a two state solution of states with largely equal standing. But that was what the Palestinians/Arabs rejected in 1948 and have repeatedly since on admittedly worse terms after each attempt to get rid of Israel. Hamas and others on the Palestinian side certainly don't want that or a secular shared liberal polity with protections - it's for them an all or nothing proposition that replaces the Jewish state with an entirely Arab one - so it never becomes an option.
So everything is stuck and getting worse for Palestinians. As that rejectionism in turn has strengthened those in Israel who believe their country is just always going to be in a fight for survival against enemies who hate its existence, and that hardens and empowers each side's hardliners in turn.
Broadly successful peace in other conflicts has been either in partition or in convincing different groups who have been at odds to share a polity. Neither appears an easy option here, as Palestinians (and hardline Israelis) reject partition and the Israelis - with good reason - are never going to trust living under majority Arab rule nor support their own destruction.
So forever war it is, with lulls, until some major things change to change those fundamentals.
A Jewish centric view I'm afraid.
Hardly given it sticks to the broader facts and what both sides say, or have said and done themselves. I suspect you just want the Arab side and to ignore Jews as that makes it a lot more simple to turn into a battle of 'good' and 'bad' rather than one that is far more difficult to solve because right comes up against right, and wrongs perpetuate wrongs.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
So... You're implying Johnson shouldn't have bene forced over it, with hindsight?
Interestingly Jamie Carragher agrees with me and @isam that it is natural that Spurs fans from north London want their own team to lose. Says he was brought up in a city that had a great rivalry too, and he would be the same. Sure, if you are a modern fan from Surrey etc that has no connection with the local area then you won't really understand the hell of going to school/work etc with the other lot. But if you live and work in north London you just don't want the other lot to win the title. "And that is right," says Carragher.
Yes, and he notes that it would be different if Arsenal were winning titles left right and centre, like City. If we win the league it could be the springboard for something special (although it probably is something special anyway now), whilst Spurs are kind of scrapping for 4th place 25-20 points back. United put up a decent fight against us, and although I am not invested in City/Utd fan chat the way I am Arsenal/Totttenham, it didnt seem like the home fans were happy to lose, probably because they are used to City winning
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
So... You're implying Johnson shouldn't have bene forced over it, with hindsight?
No, I’m saying that if it only came out now about the number 10 parties I wouldn’t give a shit. The rules were there to control behaviour in order to help control Covid (whether people think they did or didn’t) and so to retrospectively investigate criminally anyone now would be a complete waste of time and resources. Hence I don’t think any point investigating O’Neil.
Anyone being found out now will be subject to the “court of public opinion” and that’s fine.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
Twitter has a vociferous, albeit small, Letby truther movmement. By their nature they are fringe and conspiracist.
Let’s face it, in the unlikely event this was a miscarriage of justice, she is never going to be released anyway.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
I’ve read the article in question. You can disagree with lots in it. But like most stuff written for and published in the New Yorker, a serious, sensible piece that asks questions.
I’d like to know what is so upsetting that it needs blocking.
Interestingly Jamie Carragher agrees with me and @isam that it is natural that Spurs fans from north London want their own team to lose. Says he was brought up in a city that had a great rivalry too, and he would be the same. Sure, if you are a modern fan from Surrey etc that has no connection with the local area then you won't really understand the hell of going to school/work etc with the other lot. But if you live and work in north London you just don't want the other lot to win the title. "And that is right," says Carragher.
He spat at a fourteen year old girl
It is interesting that you're pleased to agree with him
Yeah, Carragher is a POS. Should have been sacked by the broadcasters not suspended and then treated as a returning hero. Something he is far from.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
As I have said, what is Kafkaesque and Orwellian is that the star prosecution witness, who as a doctor on the ward is presumably in the frame himself as a suspect and who seems to have been in an extramarital relationship with her, is allowed to give evidence as "Doctor A." If you are going to be instrumental in condemning someone to spend the rest of their life in essentially a cupboard, basic justice demands that you identify yourself.
Interestingly Jamie Carragher agrees with me and @isam that it is natural that Spurs fans from north London want their own team to lose. Says he was brought up in a city that had a great rivalry too, and he would be the same. Sure, if you are a modern fan from Surrey etc that has no connection with the local area then you won't really understand the hell of going to school/work etc with the other lot. But if you live and work in north London you just don't want the other lot to win the title. "And that is right," says Carragher.
Yes, and he notes that it would be different if Arsenal were winning titles left right and centre, like City. If we win the league it could be the springboard for something special (although it probably is something special anyway now), whilst Spurs are kind of scrapping for 4th place 25-20 points back. United put up a decent fight against us, and although I am not invested in City/Utd fan chat the way I am Arsenal/Totttenham, it didnt seem like the home fans were happy to lose, probably because they are used to City winning
Didn't have you down as an Arsenal fan. Thought you were West Ham for some reason. I'm Arsenal too. #morethatunites!
One thing we can say, win the title or just miss out, is the Arse haven't blown it this year.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
So... You're implying Johnson shouldn't have bene forced over it, with hindsight?
He wasn't, he was forced out over Pincher and over lying to the House.
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
It's not just SeaShanty, PB is full of people pompously opining about the foolishness of starting 'trade wars' and seeing trade as a 'zero sum game' when it comes to Brexit. I haven't seen the same disapproval of Biden's new pop at China for some unknown reason. Perhaps they feel it would undermine PB morale.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
So... You're implying Johnson shouldn't have bene forced over it, with hindsight?
He wasn't, he was forced out over Pincher and over lying to the House.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
Twitter has a vociferous, albeit small, Letby truther movmement. By their nature they are fringe and conspiracist.
Let’s face it, in the unlikely event this was a miscarriage of justice, she is never going to be released anyway.
Sorry, how do you mean? People do get their convictions overturned sometimes.
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
So... You're implying Johnson shouldn't have bene forced over it, with hindsight?
He wasn't, he was forced out over Pincher and over lying to the House.
All of that contributed. And he deserved to go; I was not a fan. But the point is that everyone screeches 'Party!".
If the party wasn't the reason he went, then why do people go on about it so much?
But I realise that where Johnson is concerned, things are different. He is uniquely evil.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
As I have said, what is Kafkaesque and Orwellian is that the star prosecution witness, who as a doctor on the ward is presumably in the frame himself as a suspect and who seems to have been in an extramarital relationship with her, is allowed to give evidence as "Doctor A." If you are going to be instrumental in condemning someone to spend the rest of their life in essentially a cupboard, basic justice demands that you identify yourself.
Presumably if he was having an affair with Letby then she knows who he is!
Isn't the reason that this is banned in the UK because there is a further trial or appeal planned, hence not wanting to prevent a fair hearing?
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
Whilst his position is untenable by being dead it’s probably too late to prosecute as Covid long gone, as is Bobby Storey, and equally not missed.
Aside from my mistake: "too late to prosecute": are you claiming that if the facts of the No.10 parties had only occurred now, you would not be calling for a criminal investigation?
I honestly wouldn’t give a shit. It’s so long ago and I can’t vote for or against them anyway so I wouldn’t be calling for an investigation. At least I would keep trans off the site for a few weeks though.
So... You're implying Johnson shouldn't have bene forced over it, with hindsight?
No, I’m saying that if it only came out now about the number 10 parties I wouldn’t give a shit. The rules were there to control behaviour in order to help control Covid (whether people think they did or didn’t) and so to retrospectively investigate criminally anyone now would be a complete waste of time and resources. Hence I don’t think any point investigating O’Neil.
Anyone being found out now will be subject to the “court of public opinion” and that’s fine.
O'Neill was investigated, but the DPP announced in March 2021 that she wouldn't be prosecuted, primarily because of a "lack of clarity and coherence within the regulations and the prior engagement between organisers and the police": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-53275733
This, in turn, resulted in the DUP demanding the Chief Constable's resignation, but he hung on for more than two more years until the PSNI data breach last August.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
Twitter has a vociferous, albeit small, Letby truther movmement. By their nature they are fringe and conspiracist.
Let’s face it, in the unlikely event this was a miscarriage of justice, she is never going to be released anyway.
Thinking there was something a bit iffy about Fujitsu computers was fringe and conspiracist once. You don't have to be a nutter to demand that the courts deal justly with someone, whether or not you think them guilty (I don't have a view).
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
As I have said, what is Kafkaesque and Orwellian is that the star prosecution witness, who as a doctor on the ward is presumably in the frame himself as a suspect and who seems to have been in an extramarital relationship with her, is allowed to give evidence as "Doctor A." If you are going to be instrumental in condemning someone to spend the rest of their life in essentially a cupboard, basic justice demands that you identify yourself.
Presumably if he was having an affair with Letby then she knows who he is!
Isn't the reason that this is banned in the UK because there is a further trial or appeal planned, hence not wanting to prevent a fair hearing?
Well of course she does. That doesn't explain the anonymity to the rest of the world.
The ban is one sided. Plenty of material being published by Cheshire police about how clever they are.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
Nobody is allowed to be elected to public office in Israel if they oppose the Jewish character of the state. Now you can say that applies to Jews as well as to Arabs, which it does, but that would be somewhat missing the point. See also the law of "return", and the non-existence of civil marriage in (supposedly secular) Israel.
Of course the Israeli regime is "apartheid" and it is Palestinian non-citizens, not Jews, who are subject to pass laws, laws saying they mustn't stay overnight in Jewish-only towns, etc. etc. etc. (I am not going to write an essay to prove the obvious.)
Nonetheless there are two issues with the word "apartheid":
1. It must be remembered that in South Africa it was used by the regime itself to mean apartness or (the usual translation) "separate development". A much better term would have been white supremacy. It was a mistake of the anti-supremacist movement to call itself the "anti-apartheid" movement. As we all know, South African "apartheid" was all about white rule.
Those who said they were oh so anti-racist but out of the other side of their mouths were calling the ANC "terrorist" (e.g. the Tories under Thatcher) should have been forced to answer questions such as "So in principle you think white supremacy should be removed, but you're saying it should be removed gradually at some time in the future with the agreement of today's white supremacists - is that accurate?"
2. The supremacist regime in South Africa, ugly pile of shit that it was, did not bomb the crap out of the bantustans using its airforce; nor did it massacre and displace the black population on anything like the scale that the Israeli settler regime has committed and continues to commit these crimes against the Palestinians in Palestine. Nor did it have friends around the world in powerful places who said all it wanted was to defend itself and that getting rid of white rule would mean the extermination of whites.
Incidentally one fact of which you may perhaps be unaware is that most Palestinians in Israel lived under military rule before the Six Day War.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
Twitter has a vociferous, albeit small, Letby truther movmement. By their nature they are fringe and conspiracist.
Let’s face it, in the unlikely event this was a miscarriage of justice, she is never going to be released anyway.
Thinking there was something a bit iffy about Fujitsu computers was fringe and conspiracist once. You don't have to be a nutter to demand that the courts deal justly with someone, whether or not you think them guilty (I don't have a view).
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
It is an unwritten but real rule that the Arab parties in the Knesset are never invited into government.
I'd be amazed if the Lib Dems only won St Ives within Devon, Cornwall & Dorset.
I get why it's difficult to model tactical voting in an MRP, and maybe I rather than the pollsters will have egg on my face rather than them. But a lot of the projected results are not credible (even leaving aside the fact they use old boundaries).
Take North Devon - Lib Dems are projected to just miss out as the Labour vote more than doubles to 21%. Labour got 7% of the vote and no councillors only last year - they just aren't a presence.
I'm not especially bullish on the Lib Dems for the election, and the Tories have an okay chance of holding North Devon. But, if they do, they'll have to do it without relying on Labour implausibly getting 21%.
Constituency by constituency is always tricky - this seems very (even absurdly in some cases) generous to them in rural seats but massively harsh on the Tories in London. Its way too UNS when we've just had a very clear steer on London sentiment.
The point with an MRP is that it isn't UNS, though. So it is in fact meant to be modelling what particular demographics are doing, and applying it to the demographics of the area - there are regional, urban/rural, remain/leave and other variations and they follow the stats on that.
Their quite specific problem is that a particular demographic may behave quite differently in objectively similar seats based on perceived and historical strength of different parties.
True, but historic strength / position in local elections / etc., can all be factors used in the MRP model.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
Twitter has a vociferous, albeit small, Letby truther movmement. By their nature they are fringe and conspiracist.
Let’s face it, in the unlikely event this was a miscarriage of justice, she is never going to be released anyway.
Thinking there was something a bit iffy about Fujitsu computers was fringe and conspiracist once. You don't have to be a nutter to demand that the courts deal justly with someone, whether or not you think them guilty (I don't have a view).
The workers' voice was heard today. My Job is to defend workers. @UKLabour have listened. The words on the page will now matter. #Labour #JobsPayConditions
Just picking up on something @148grss said on a previous thread -
"I don't disagree that a pride flag is political, but why is it so? - because LGBTQ+ people had to fight for their rights. Would the suffragette colours similarly be banned for being "political"? Poppies in November? No - because they are the right kind of political."
I agree that banning rainbow lanyards is pathetic and petty. But you ask "Would the suffragette colours similarly be banned for being "political"?"
The Scottish government did precisely this - banning women who came to debates at Holyrood from wearing scarves in the suffragette colours or even suffragette pins.
As ever, it is the double standards which infuriate and the perception that symbols associated with women's rights are somehow less important than those of other groups or offensive or something. If rainbow lanyards are fine then so are suffragette ones. Both or neither. Not just a preferred one.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
Nobody is allowed to be elected to public office in Israel if they oppose the Jewish character of the state. Now you can say that applies to Jews as well as to Arabs, which it does, but that would be somewhat missing the point. See also the law of "return", and the non-existence of civil marriage in (supposedly secular) Israel.
Of course the Israeli regime is "apartheid" and it is Palestinian non-citizens, not Jews, who are subject to pass laws, laws saying they mustn't stay overnight in Jewish-only towns, etc. etc. etc. (I am not going to write an essay to prove the obvious.)
Nonetheless there are two issues with the word "apartheid":
1. It must be remembered that in South Africa it was used by the regime itself to mean apartness or (the usual translation) "separate development". A much better term would have been white supremacy. It was a mistake of the anti-supremacist movement to call itself the "anti-apartheid" movement. As we all know, South African "apartheid" was all about white rule.
Those who said they were oh so anti-racist but out of the other side of their mouths were calling the ANC "terrorist" (e.g. the Tories under Thatcher) should have been forced to answer questions such as "So in principle you think white supremacy should be removed, but you're saying it should be removed gradually at some time in the future with the agreement of today's white supremacists - is that accurate?"
2. The supremacist regime in South Africa, ugly pile of shit that it was, did not bomb the crap out of the bantustans using its airforce; nor did it massacre and displace the black population on anything like the scale that the Israeli settler regime has committed and continues to commit these crimes against the Palestinians in Palestine. Nor did it have friends around the world in powerful places who said all it wanted was to defend itself and that getting rid of white rule would mean the extermination of whites.
Incidentally one fact of which you may perhaps be unaware is that most Palestinians in Israel lived under military rule before the Six Day War.
I should add that today's South African government deserves great respect for the genocide case it has brought against Israel at the International Court of Justice in the Hague 👍
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
It's not just SeaShanty, PB is full of people pompously opining about the foolishness of starting 'trade wars' and seeing trade as a 'zero sum game' when it comes to Brexit. I haven't seen the same disapproval of Biden's new pop at China for some unknown reason. Perhaps they feel it would undermine PB morale.
You are mis-characterizing my views on trade as well as Biden's China policy. Which BTW (also FYI apparently) goes WAY beyond just trade impacts. And is NOT something brand-new (see article I cited from 2020).
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
I’ve read the article in question. You can disagree with lots in it. But like most stuff written for and published in the New Yorker, a serious, sensible piece that asks questions.
I’d like to know what is so upsetting that it needs blocking.
Presumably it counts as reporting on an ongoing case (ongoing because she’s been charged with another case and is appealing her original case)…?
I'd be amazed if the Lib Dems only won St Ives within Devon, Cornwall & Dorset.
I wouldn't be.
Many SW Liberal voters used to be very, very eurosceptic.
I remember campaigning in 2017 and 2019 and changing house after house from Lib Dem to Tory VIs.
Maybe all those farmers and fisherfolk and workers in associated industries have at least begun to realise that they’ve been conned?
Largely suburban pensioners in my experience....
Farmers and fishermen in these parts already voted Tory.
The only farmer I know - a former fund manager - recently told me he plans to vote LibDem at the next election. He has never voted anything except Conservative in the past, and expects it to be a one off, but says - with a shrug - that it's time for a change.
The workers' voice was heard today. My Job is to defend workers. @UKLabour have listened. The words on the page will now matter. #Labour #JobsPayConditions
You were all over the "Elon Musk angle" when Trump was proposing big tariffs on Chinese electric cars. When Biden actually does it, it's part of a sensible and strategic foreign policy.
It's not just SeaShanty, PB is full of people pompously opining about the foolishness of starting 'trade wars' and seeing trade as a 'zero sum game' when it comes to Brexit. I haven't seen the same disapproval of Biden's new pop at China for some unknown reason. Perhaps they feel it would undermine PB morale.
You are mis-characterizing my views on trade as well as Biden's China policy. Which BTW (also FYI apparently) goes WAY beyond just trade impacts. And is NOT something brand-new (see article I cited from 2020).
I was aiming to characterise others' views, apologies if in doing so I've included you when I shouldn't have.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
It was stupid from Trump, and it's stupid from Biden.
If the US and EU both put up tariffs, perhaps we open our market up to surplus Chinese electric cars and solar panels and achieve a step change in emissions on the cheap.
In my left - leaning but considered opinion, if you want to know what the death of the capitalist west might look like, you need to look little further than the themes drawn out in this podcast. I would highly recommend a full listen but, knowing that's hard to make time for, just two anecdotes from the programme:
1. After the point at which it was obvious that Oxycontin was being heavily abused and was far more addictive than had been first admitted, its manufacturers commissioned McKinsey to explore how they could reinvigorate its flagging sales.
McKinsey found that 7% of US doctors were prescribing half of all Oxycontin.
Rather than highlighting this as a worrying statistic in light of it's clear misuse and sale on the black market, they recommended that the manufacturers create a special incentive scheme aimed at those 7% to 'turbocharge' sales. WTAF?
2. Since the manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy (partly as a result of the Sackler family having extracted £11 billion from the company) over 200,000 people have died as a result of opioid addiction in USA.
200,000.
That puts the little shindigs in Ukraine and Gaza into perspective doesn't it? Not sure even the Chinese have bumped off that many Uighurs.
Right now, the Supreme Court is deciding between a bankruptcy case that will protect the Sackler family from future civil litigation but is pretty paltry, or throwing out the case and letting more people die with no compensation as lawyers go back to square one.
The moral bankruptcy is truly breathtaking. I would like to remain a defender of capitalism but if this is the result I find it increasingly hard to stomach.
Anyone got an opinion on this? (From Guardian Live Politics Blog)
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
I would imagine that this topic is next to impossible to discuss here for obvious legal reasons.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
I’ve read the article in question. You can disagree with lots in it. But like most stuff written for and published in the New Yorker, a serious, sensible piece that asks questions.
I’d like to know what is so upsetting that it needs blocking.
Presumably it counts as reporting on an ongoing case (ongoing because she’s been charged with another case and is appealing her original case)…?
I didn't know there was an ongoing case wrt Letby.
He's ungenerous and attracted by the most unpleasant of the 'deep' Tories. Patel Braverman and Jenrick. He lacks the ingredient that makes you want to engage with him on any level. Something even Starmer has got.
You may want to revise your opinion - Suella has come out for scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, making her officially more compassionate and left wing than Kier Starmer.
This is a great example of the double-standards that prevail within British political debate.
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
I think you means
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
I think it's more of a credibility thing. Tories can scream till they're hoarse about the NHS needing reform, not just hosing with cash, but when a Labour politician says it, it's noticed. By the same token, when a right wing Tory suggests increasing welfare spending on something, it attracts attention.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
The parallels don't work because the situations are so historically different - but are reached for because of their rhetorical power.
If the situation in Israel/Palestine were like apartheid it would, perhaps with a tragic irony, be far more soluble than it actually is, because there'd be a clear answer of a shared polity with some carve outs for the protection of minority ethnic groups against the majority - and merely require a powerful colonialist group to give up political power to that.
But that's not the case in Israel given Jewish history, the reasons for Israel's creation, and the fact most of its residents are or descended themselves from refugees from neighbouring Arab regimes that mistreated Jews. And which in modern times have a spectacularly poor record (even compared to Israel's treatment of Palestinians) of treatment of even Muslims who disagree with those running each country's flavour of nationalism or theocracy.
Alternatively, a two state solution of states with largely equal standing. But that was what the Palestinians/Arabs rejected in 1948 and have repeatedly since on admittedly worse terms after each attempt to get rid of Israel. Hamas and others on the Palestinian side certainly don't want that or a secular shared liberal polity with protections - it's for them an all or nothing proposition that replaces the Jewish state with an entirely Arab one - so it never becomes an option.
So everything is stuck and getting worse for Palestinians. As that rejectionism in turn has strengthened those in Israel who believe their country is just always going to be in a fight for survival against enemies who hate its existence, and that hardens and empowers each side's hardliners in turn.
Broadly successful peace in other conflicts has been either in partition or in convincing different groups who have been at odds to share a polity. Neither appears an easy option here, as Palestinians (and hardline Israelis) reject partition and the Israelis - with good reason - are never going to trust living under majority Arab rule nor support their own destruction.
So forever war it is, with lulls, until some major things change to change those fundamentals.
A Jewish centric view I'm afraid.
Hardly given it sticks to the broader facts and what both sides say, or have said and done themselves. I suspect you just want the Arab side and to ignore Jews as that makes it a lot more simple to turn into a battle of 'good' and 'bad' rather than one that is far more difficult to solve because right comes up against right, and wrongs perpetuate wrongs.
Not at all. I have worked in Lebanon and surrounding countries many times and I now count several 'Arabs' among my good friends.
When I first went to do a job there I hd no idea what to expect. The Lebanese war was recently over and the people I worked with were very new to what I was wanting them to do.
But over several visits and different jobs I found them to be amongst the brightest and the funniest I've had the pleasure to work with. They had a wisdom and wit that I've seldom found which I put down to being from an old civilisation.
There wasn't time to make them into great technicians but they were extremely conscientious and so humble and anxious to please the jobs were just fun and a pleasure
I've been invited to several of their weddings and now count many as good friends. Some in my extended jewish family who now live in Israel don't see things the way I do.
Some share your view that they can't be trusted though they express it less articulately. One young nephew recently told me "Palestinians smell." How do you know"? I asked
Statista registers it's lowest ever vote leave support.... again. I think we can all see where things are heading in the medium term. As soon as labour enters government and has to contend with reality their polling will wane. They will throw red meat at their eu loving, rejoiner voting base to stay in power.
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
Nobody is allowed to be elected to public office in Israel if they oppose the Jewish character of the state. Now you can say that applies to Jews as well as to Arabs, which it does, but that would be somewhat missing the point. See also the law of "return", and the non-existence of civil marriage in (supposedly secular) Israel.
Of course the Israeli regime is "apartheid" and it is Palestinian non-citizens, not Jews, who are subject to pass laws, laws saying they mustn't stay overnight in Jewish-only towns, etc. etc. etc. (I am not going to write an essay to prove the obvious.)
Nonetheless there are two issues with the word "apartheid":
1. It must be remembered that in South Africa it was used by the regime itself to mean apartness or (the usual translation) "separate development". A much better term would have been white supremacy. It was a mistake of the anti-supremacist movement to call itself the "anti-apartheid" movement. As we all know, South African "apartheid" was all about white rule.
Those who said they were oh so anti-racist but out of the other side of their mouths were calling the ANC "terrorist" (e.g. the Tories under Thatcher) should have been forced to answer questions such as "So in principle you think white supremacy should be removed, but you're saying it should be removed gradually at some time in the future with the agreement of today's white supremacists - is that accurate?"
2. The supremacist regime in South Africa, ugly pile of shit that it was, did not bomb the crap out of the bantustans using its airforce; nor did it massacre and displace the black population on anything like the scale that the Israeli settler regime has committed and continues to commit these crimes against the Palestinians in Palestine. Nor did it have friends around the world in powerful places who said all it wanted was to defend itself and that getting rid of white rule would mean the extermination of whites.
Incidentally one fact of which you may perhaps be unaware is that most Palestinians in Israel lived under military rule before the Six Day War.
I think apartheid is always going to be a misdiagnosis of what is going on in Israel and Palestine because it is such a historically specific word.
It's an easy badge to draw attention to the obvious injustices, but is a lazy gambit, in my view.
The workers' voice was heard today. My Job is to defend workers. @UKLabour have listened. The words on the page will now matter. #Labour #JobsPayConditions
Just picking up on something @148grss said on a previous thread -
"I don't disagree that a pride flag is political, but why is it so? - because LGBTQ+ people had to fight for their rights. Would the suffragette colours similarly be banned for being "political"? Poppies in November? No - because they are the right kind of political."
I agree that banning rainbow lanyards is pathetic and petty. But you ask "Would the suffragette colours similarly be banned for being "political"?"
The Scottish government did precisely this - banning women who came to debates at Holyrood from wearing scarves in the suffragette colours or even suffragette pins.
As ever, it is the double standards which infuriate and the perception that symbols associated with women's rights are somehow less important than those of other groups or offensive or something. If rainbow lanyards are fine then so are suffragette ones. Both or neither. Not just a preferred one.
A point of detail : not the Scottish Government, but the Parliamentary Corporate Body. **
Which actually says that rainbow lanyards are *not* fine to have if suffragette ones are not. *
In my left - leaning but considered opinion, if you want to know what the death of the capitalist west might look like, you need to look little further than the themes drawn out in this podcast. I would highly recommend a full listen but, knowing that's hard to make time for, just two anecdotes from the programme:
1. After the point at which it was obvious that Oxycontin was being heavily abused and was far more addictive than had been first admitted, its manufacturers commissioned McKinsey to explore how they could reinvigorate its flagging sales.
McKinsey found that 7% of US doctors were prescribing half of all Oxycontin.
Rather than highlighting this as a worrying statistic in light of it's clear misuse and sale on the black market, they recommended that the manufacturers create a special incentive scheme aimed at those 7% to 'turbocharge' sales. WTAF?
2. Since the manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy (partly as a result of the Sackler family having extracted £11 billion from the company) over 200,000 people have died as a result of opioid addiction in USA.
200,000.
That puts the little shindigs in Ukraine and Gaza into perspective doesn't it? Not sure even the Chinese have bumped off that many Uighurs.
Right now, the Supreme Court is deciding between a bankruptcy case that will protect the Sackler family from future civil litigation but is pretty paltry, or throwing out the case and letting more people die with no compensation as lawyers go back to square one.
The moral bankruptcy is truly breathtaking. I would like to remain a defender of capitalism but if this is the result I find it increasingly hard to stomach.
I agree the Sacklers are scumbags but is that all opioid deaths or prescription opioid deaths?
Okay. Question relating to the next UK general election.
Which seat will see the first Labour gain declared on the night, and what will different margins of victory say about the likely final result?
Too hard for me, but much more interesting.
Also interesting:
Biden’s EV tariffs Kwarteng’s interview on “Leading” Today’s very poor productivity numbers. What we should read into Sunak’s speech if anything. Caulfield’s conspiracy-mongering.
Or a more philosophical question. Is Israel an apartheid state and if it is (almost certainly) should all Labour members who have been expelled for saying so be reinstated?
I can see why some people call Israel an apartheid state but I don't think it is. There's nothing stopping an Israeli Arab voting, standing for election, being elected or even in theory becoming Prime Minister or President. There's no Jew-only or Arab-only benches, beaches or parks. By the Constitution of Israel all citizens have equal rights.
Does that mean that because it's not an apartheid state it's perfect, no, there's systemic discrimination against non-Jewish citizens, the immigration process, housing policy and education systems are discriminatory.
What Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is almost without parallel. There's a military occupation but with the movement of the occupying force's civilian population to settle some areas of the occupied territory but without annexation. It's similar to China annexing Tibet or Morocco annexing Western Sahara but wanting to keep the existing occupied population as non-citizens. It doesn't seem sustainable, but I've thought that since before Oslo so what do I know?
The parallels don't work because the situations are so historically different - but are reached for because of their rhetorical power.
If the situation in Israel/Palestine were like apartheid it would, perhaps with a tragic irony, be far more soluble than it actually is, because there'd be a clear answer of a shared polity with some carve outs for the protection of minority ethnic groups against the majority - and merely require a powerful colonialist group to give up political power to that.
But that's not the case in Israel given Jewish history, the reasons for Israel's creation, and the fact most of its residents are or descended themselves from refugees from neighbouring Arab regimes that mistreated Jews. And which in modern times have a spectacularly poor record (even compared to Israel's treatment of Palestinians) of treatment of even Muslims who disagree with those running each country's flavour of nationalism or theocracy.
Alternatively, a two state solution of states with largely equal standing. But that was what the Palestinians/Arabs rejected in 1948 and have repeatedly since on admittedly worse terms after each attempt to get rid of Israel. Hamas and others on the Palestinian side certainly don't want that or a secular shared liberal polity with protections - it's for them an all or nothing proposition that replaces the Jewish state with an entirely Arab one - so it never becomes an option.
So everything is stuck and getting worse for Palestinians. As that rejectionism in turn has strengthened those in Israel who believe their country is just always going to be in a fight for survival against enemies who hate its existence, and that hardens and empowers each side's hardliners in turn.
Broadly successful peace in other conflicts has been either in partition or in convincing different groups who have been at odds to share a polity. Neither appears an easy option here, as Palestinians (and hardline Israelis) reject partition and the Israelis - with good reason - are never going to trust living under majority Arab rule nor support their own destruction.
So forever war it is, with lulls, until some major things change to change those fundamentals.
A Jewish centric view I'm afraid.
Hardly given it sticks to the broader facts and what both sides say, or have said and done themselves. I suspect you just want the Arab side and to ignore Jews as that makes it a lot more simple to turn into a battle of 'good' and 'bad' rather than one that is far more difficult to solve because right comes up against right, and wrongs perpetuate wrongs.
Not at all. I have worked in Lebanon and surrounding countries many times and I now count several 'Arabs' among my good friends.
When I first went to do a job there I hd no idea what to expect. The Lebanese war was recently over and the people I worked with were very new to what I was wanting them to do.
But over several visits and different jobs I found them to be amongst the brightest and the funniest I've had the pleasure to work with. They had a wisdom and wit that I've seldom found which I put down to being from an old civilisation.
There wasn't time to make them into great technicians but they were extremely conscientious and so humble and anxious to please the jobs were just fun and a pleasure
I've been invited to several of their weddings and now count many as good friends. Some in my extended jewish family who now live in Israel don't see things the way I do.
Some share your view that they can't be trusted though they express it less articulately. One young nephew recently told me "Palestinians smell." How do you know"? I asked
"Our teacher told us".
You should (or not) have heard what people fresh from the Middle East said at the oil company I worked at.
Middle class, educated etc. but straight from their home country.
The bit where they were told they were in the same room as a Jew was always interesting. They had been taught to hate Jews since they could remember - state propaganda.
As was the time some of them discovered that their boss was to be black and female.
We used to call it the “decompression” as they stopped having a moment about such things.
Oh, and they were quite bigoted about Palestinians as well. Which lines up well with how Palestinians are treated in the Gulf States.
In my left - leaning but considered opinion, if you want to know what the death of the capitalist west might look like, you need to look little further than the themes drawn out in this podcast. I would highly recommend a full listen but, knowing that's hard to make time for, just two anecdotes from the programme:
1. After the point at which it was obvious that Oxycontin was being heavily abused and was far more addictive than had been first admitted, its manufacturers commissioned McKinsey to explore how they could reinvigorate its flagging sales.
McKinsey found that 7% of US doctors were prescribing half of all Oxycontin.
Rather than highlighting this as a worrying statistic in light of it's clear misuse and sale on the black market, they recommended that the manufacturers create a special incentive scheme aimed at those 7% to 'turbocharge' sales. WTAF?
2. Since the manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy (partly as a result of the Sackler family having extracted £11 billion from the company) over 200,000 people have died as a result of opioid addiction in USA.
200,000.
That puts the little shindigs in Ukraine and Gaza into perspective doesn't it? Not sure even the Chinese have bumped off that many Uighurs.
Right now, the Supreme Court is deciding between a bankruptcy case that will protect the Sackler family from future civil litigation but is pretty paltry, or throwing out the case and letting more people die with no compensation as lawyers go back to square one.
The moral bankruptcy is truly breathtaking. I would like to remain a defender of capitalism but if this is the result I find it increasingly hard to stomach.
How large a component of USA lower life expectancy, relative to other Western countries, does this and other similar factors represent - I wonder?
I've often wondered how much of that reduction in life expectancy is caused by unusual - for the West - factors, including the 90-100k people Usonians kill every year with their guns and their motor vehicles.
In my left - leaning but considered opinion, if you want to know what the death of the capitalist west might look like, you need to look little further than the themes drawn out in this podcast. I would highly recommend a full listen but, knowing that's hard to make time for, just two anecdotes from the programme:
1. After the point at which it was obvious that Oxycontin was being heavily abused and was far more addictive than had been first admitted, its manufacturers commissioned McKinsey to explore how they could reinvigorate its flagging sales.
McKinsey found that 7% of US doctors were prescribing half of all Oxycontin.
Rather than highlighting this as a worrying statistic in light of it's clear misuse and sale on the black market, they recommended that the manufacturers create a special incentive scheme aimed at those 7% to 'turbocharge' sales. WTAF?
2. Since the manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy (partly as a result of the Sackler family having extracted £11 billion from the company) over 200,000 people have died as a result of opioid addiction in USA.
200,000.
That puts the little shindigs in Ukraine and Gaza into perspective doesn't it? Not sure even the Chinese have bumped off that many Uighurs.
Right now, the Supreme Court is deciding between a bankruptcy case that will protect the Sackler family from future civil litigation but is pretty paltry, or throwing out the case and letting more people die with no compensation as lawyers go back to square one.
The moral bankruptcy is truly breathtaking. I would like to remain a defender of capitalism but if this is the result I find it increasingly hard to stomach.
Just getting into the tv dramatization of this. Dopesick. Yes, talk about your 'unacceptable face of capitalism'.
The workers' voice was heard today. My Job is to defend workers. @UKLabour have listened. The words on the page will now matter. #Labour #JobsPayConditions
Comments
2. The Law of Return
3. The Admission Committee Law
4. Absentee Property Law and Land Acquisition Law
5. Israel Lands Law
6. The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law
7. The Nakba Law
Grand Canyon from a helicopter 30 min ago. Hope the pics come out ok.
Sorry they seem to be blurred. Don't know why. The originals were ok
Farmers and fishermen in these parts already voted Tory.
But Sunak essentially already is a caretaker PM - he's reasonably within the current party mainstream, somewhat bland, doesn't scare the markets, and has a pretty limited shelf life. There's no meaningful case to replace one caretaker with another. There would only be a point to get someone who might change the weather, and all of the people who just conceivably might are either outside the Commons or sitting it out until 2025.
As you say, a reasonable proportion also no longer have skin in the game - they've announced their retirement or have decided but are yet to announce.
But Israel now cannot step back, they are as trapped by the current situation as the Palestinians are. They cannot withdraw, the backlash would topple any Israeli government that tried. They will not be militarily defeated and they wouldn't have the Western support to forcibly ethnic cleanse the whole of the West Bank. About the only plan they have is more of the same, cripple the Palestinians just a little bit more and hope they will accept some sort of Bantustan status but at least it kicks the can down the road for a few more years.
Look how many constituencies Labour are estimated to pick up, twice as many as the SNP despite completely equal vote shares. In fact Glasgow ends up completely red, the first time that I can recall my calculator ever giving a region without a single SNP constituency MSP.
https://ballotbox.scot/savanta-may-2024/
Nicola and Yousuf out?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/
@POTUS
I just imposed a series of tariffs on goods made in China:
25% on steel and aluminum,
50% on semiconductors,
100% on EVs,
And 50% on solar panels.
China is determined to dominate these industries.
I'm determined to ensure America leads the world in them.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1790385220983677016
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asks Michael Cohen to state why he paid $130,000 to Stormy Daniels.
Cohen: "To ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect Mr. Trump's chances of becoming president of the United States."
Hoffinger asks him to state at whose direction he paid Daniels. Cohen: "Trump's."
https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1790419356910076144
https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/joe-bidens-record-on-china-and-taiwan/
Just enjoy the comings AND the goings.
"I'm sorry for going to Storey funeral - O'Neill"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglxxyn04zno
If Johnson had to go because of having a 'party' at No. 10, then surely Storey's position is untenable? Especially as many of Johnson's critics point to the Queen sitting alone at Prince Phillip's funeral.
Especially given Bobby Storey's (ahem) colourful past.
It is interesting that you're pleased to agree with him
If a similar figure in Labour had advocated for such a change of policy the discussion about it would be dominated by recurring all the times they had voted for the 2 child benefit cap, ridiculing them for the u-turn.
When a Tory makes such a shift then the debate is all about how Labour have been outmanoeuvred.
On this particular issue we've had years of it being a sign of how Labour aren't serious about controlling welfare spending, of Labour being on the side of slackers, while the Tories were on the side of strivers. Now that a single Tory pulls a 180 on the policy and Labour are still in the wrong.
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day. It gives us a shallow debate dominated by Oxford Union debating points, where the game is always the same: "This House believes that on issue x the Labour Party are wrong."
I'd love to discuss why some Tories are now changing their mind on this policy, and what the benefits of dumping it would be.
If the situation in Israel/Palestine were like apartheid it would, perhaps with a tragic irony, be far more soluble than it actually is, because there'd be a clear answer of a shared polity with some carve outs for the protection of minority ethnic groups against the majority - and merely require a powerful colonialist group to give up political power to that.
But that's not the case in Israel given Jewish history, the reasons for Israel's creation, and the fact most of its residents are or descended themselves from refugees from neighbouring Arab regimes that mistreated Jews. And which in modern times have a spectacularly poor record (even compared to Israel's treatment of Palestinians) of treatment of even Muslims who disagree with those running each country's flavour of nationalism or theocracy.
Alternatively, a two state solution of states with largely equal standing. But that was what the Palestinians/Arabs rejected in 1948 and have repeatedly since on admittedly worse terms after each attempt to get rid of Israel. Hamas and others on the Palestinian side certainly don't want that or a secular shared liberal polity with protections - it's for them an all or nothing proposition that replaces the Jewish state with an entirely Arab one - so it never becomes an option.
So everything is stuck and getting worse for Palestinians. As that rejectionism in turn has strengthened those in Israel who believe their country is just always going to be in a fight for survival against enemies who hate its existence, and that hardens and empowers each side's hardliners in turn.
Broadly successful peace in other conflicts has been either in partition or in convincing different groups who have been at odds to share a polity. Neither appears an easy option here, as Palestinians (and hardline Israelis) reject partition and the Israelis - with good reason - are never going to trust living under majority Arab rule nor support their own destruction.
So forever war it is, with lulls, until some major things change to change those fundamentals.
"Court order blocking publication of article about Lucy Letby case 'in defiance of open justice', David Davis tells MPs
A former cabinet minister told MPs this morning that a court order blocking publication of an article about the Lucy Letby, the nurse and convicted child serial killer, seemed to be “in defiance of open justice”.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has a record of campaigning on miscarriage of justice issue, raised the matter during justice questions, where he asked about an article published in the US but not available online to readers in the UK.
He said:
Yesterday the New Yorker magazine published a 13,000-word inquiry into the Lucy Letby trial, which raised enormous concerns about both the logic and competence of the statistical evidence that was a central part of that trial.
That article was blocked from publication on the UK internet, I understand because of a court order. Now, I’m sure that court order was well intended but it seems to me in defiance of open justice.
Will the lord chancellor look into this matter and report back to the house?"
The article is of course easily available to find on TwiXer
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelTouhey/status/1790408951743315983
Gov. Burgum calls hush money trial a "sham trial" and a "scam trial."
He had the House Speaker out earlier, similarly abasing himself by displaying contempt of court on behalf of his master.
From an Israeli point of view, I suspect the best outcome might be some sort of strongman regime emerging. A Hosni Mubarak would be ideal but, honestly, an Assad or an el-Sisi would do the job almost as well.
Someone with no links to Iran, someone who isn't so obviously corrupt as Fatah, and, most of all, someone who they can deal with. They could quietly help prop them up, shower them with money, and hope that in 20-25 years' time, the scars would have healed enough to allow a more direct relationship to develop.
It would be a miserable experience for all involved, but is there any other path out of the current mess for them?
There are still several hundred Tory MPs still in Parliament. A fair proportion of whom would stoop to the challenge.
fwiw, I agree with David Davis though - the ban on any discussion of this issue by the court when simultaneously the police get to go on TV and crow about how right they were in glorious technicolour is obviously completely unfair & counter to natural justice. Those who think Letby has been wrongly convicted have been silenced in the UK by the courts.
Braverman’s seen the light of day on this one issue but this is a Tory policy and they own it. There is an obsession on this board to link everything back to Starmer as if this were some brilliant tactical manoeuvre by Cruella to outflank him.
Anyone being found out now will be subject to the “court of public opinion” and that’s fine.
Let’s face it, in the unlikely event this was a miscarriage of justice, she is never going to be released anyway.
I’d like to know what is so upsetting that it needs blocking.
One thing we can say, win the title or just miss out, is the Arse haven't blown it this year.
If the party wasn't the reason he went, then why do people go on about it so much?
But I realise that where Johnson is concerned, things are different. He is uniquely evil.
Isn't the reason that this is banned in the UK because there is a further trial or appeal planned, hence not wanting to prevent a fair hearing?
This, in turn, resulted in the DUP demanding the Chief Constable's resignation, but he hung on for more than two more years until the PSNI data breach last August.
NI politics is a soap opera of the worst sort.
The ban is one sided. Plenty of material being published by Cheshire police about how clever they are.
Of course the Israeli regime is "apartheid" and it is Palestinian non-citizens, not Jews, who are subject to pass laws, laws saying they mustn't stay overnight in Jewish-only towns, etc. etc. etc. (I am not going to write an essay to prove the obvious.)
Nonetheless there are two issues with the word "apartheid":
1. It must be remembered that in South Africa it was used by the regime itself to mean apartness or (the usual translation) "separate development". A much better term would have been white supremacy. It was a mistake of the anti-supremacist movement to call itself the "anti-apartheid" movement. As we all know, South African "apartheid" was all about white rule.
Those who said they were oh so anti-racist but out of the other side of their mouths were calling the ANC "terrorist" (e.g. the Tories under Thatcher) should have been forced to answer questions such as "So in principle you think white supremacy should be removed, but you're saying it should be removed gradually at some time in the future with the agreement of today's white supremacists - is that accurate?"
2. The supremacist regime in South Africa, ugly pile of shit that it was, did not bomb the crap out of the bantustans using its airforce; nor did it massacre and displace the black population on anything like the scale that the Israeli settler regime has committed and continues to commit these crimes against the Palestinians in Palestine. Nor did it have friends around the world in powerful places who said all it wanted was to defend itself and that getting rid of white rule would mean the extermination of whites.
Incidentally one fact of which you may perhaps be unaware is that most Palestinians in Israel lived under military rule before the Six Day War.
https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/2024-presidential-election-polling
If so, it doesn't sound like there's anything unusual or sinister about the reporting restrictions.
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/b42240af-0983-4f58-bcd2-c75bd16901b8
Sharon Graham
@UniteSharon
The workers' voice was heard today. My Job is to defend workers. @UKLabour have listened. The words on the page will now matter. #Labour #JobsPayConditions
https://twitter.com/UniteSharon/status/1790438529387872473
"I don't disagree that a pride flag is political, but why is it so? - because LGBTQ+ people had to fight for their rights. Would the suffragette colours similarly be banned for being "political"? Poppies in November? No - because they are the right kind of political."
I agree that banning rainbow lanyards is pathetic and petty. But you ask "Would the suffragette colours similarly be banned for being "political"?"
The Scottish government did precisely this - banning women who came to debates at Holyrood from wearing scarves in the suffragette colours or even suffragette pins.
As ever, it is the double standards which infuriate and the perception that symbols associated with women's rights are somehow less important than those of other groups or offensive or something. If rainbow lanyards are fine then so are suffragette ones. Both or neither. Not just a preferred one.
Scarborough North Bay Railway, and the Cliff Lift done, despite the intermittent rain!
Would post a couple of pics but will they be blurry again?
British political debate is dominated by people for whom Labour/Conservatives [delete as appropriate] is always wrong, regardless of the conditions the commentator has to pull on the issues of the day
With apologies to those who are better informed and for which this is old news, I just listened to the Slow News podcast on the Sackler family (https://www.tortoisemedia.com/audio/the-sacklers-getting-away-with-it/).
In my left - leaning but considered opinion, if you want to know what the death of the capitalist west might look like, you need to look little further than the themes drawn out in this podcast. I would highly recommend a full listen but, knowing that's hard to make time for, just two anecdotes from the programme:
1. After the point at which it was obvious that Oxycontin was being heavily abused and was far more addictive than had been first admitted, its manufacturers commissioned McKinsey to explore how they could reinvigorate its flagging sales.
McKinsey found that 7% of US doctors were prescribing half of all Oxycontin.
Rather than highlighting this as a worrying statistic in light of it's clear misuse and sale on the black market, they recommended that the manufacturers create a special incentive scheme aimed at those 7% to 'turbocharge' sales. WTAF?
2. Since the manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy (partly as a result of the Sackler family having extracted £11 billion from the company) over 200,000 people have died as a result of opioid addiction in USA.
200,000.
That puts the little shindigs in Ukraine and Gaza into perspective doesn't it? Not sure even the Chinese have bumped off that many Uighurs.
Right now, the Supreme Court is deciding between a bankruptcy case that will protect the Sackler family from future civil litigation but is pretty paltry, or throwing out the case and letting more people die with no compensation as lawyers go back to square one.
The moral bankruptcy is truly breathtaking. I would like to remain a defender of capitalism but if this is the result I find it increasingly hard to stomach.
When I first went to do a job there I hd no idea what to expect. The Lebanese war was recently over and the people I worked with were very new to what I was wanting them to do.
But over several visits and different jobs I found them to be amongst the brightest and the funniest I've had the pleasure to work with. They had a wisdom and wit that I've seldom found which I put down to being from an old civilisation.
There wasn't time to make them into great technicians but they were extremely conscientious and so humble and anxious to please the jobs were just fun and a pleasure
I've been invited to several of their weddings and now count many as good friends. Some in my extended jewish family who now live in Israel don't see things the way I do.
Some share your view that they can't be trusted though they express it less articulately. One young nephew recently told me "Palestinians smell." How do you know"? I asked
"Our teacher told us".
It's an easy badge to draw attention to the obvious injustices, but is a lazy gambit, in my view.
Which actually says that rainbow lanyards are *not* fine to have if suffragette ones are not. *
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,over-the-rainbow-what-does-lanyardgate-say-about-the-state-of-scottish-politics
*albeit with a delay.
** analogous to the Westminster Houses of Pmt under the Speaker.
Middle class, educated etc. but straight from their home country.
The bit where they were told they were in the same room as a Jew was always interesting. They had been taught to hate Jews since they could remember - state propaganda.
As was the time some of them discovered that their boss was to be black and female.
We used to call it the “decompression” as they stopped having a moment about such things.
Oh, and they were quite bigoted about Palestinians as well. Which lines up well with how Palestinians are treated in the Gulf States.
I've often wondered how much of that reduction in life expectancy is caused by unusual - for the West - factors, including the 90-100k people Usonians kill every year with their guns and their motor vehicles.