The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
This just isn't true. Parliament can override them.
Parliament is ultimately sovereign, the issue is that the Conservatives are pushing the will of parliament against itself.
If the will of parliament is to remain part of the ECHR, then there are conditions that come with that. If the will of parliament is not to be part of the ECHR then it can run whatever rules it likes through.
It's pure politics, not least pushed by the Conservatives muddling the ECHR with the EU to push back at UKIP.
You are dancing on pinheads.
Yes, parliament is sovereign as you say, but it has currently agreed to hand over a large chunk of that sovereignty to the ECHR. Having seen the hash which the ECHR has made of the matter, it is time to take it back under democratic control.
Then leave the ECHR.
That's the point, parliament is sovereign because it chooses whether or not to be part of the ECHR.
If it's parliamentary will to be in it then be in it and hence follow the regulations of it then be in it.
If it's parliamentary will not to be in it then don't be in it.
That's your parliamentary sovereignty, but it's in that decision, rather than this set of proposals that want to play to the gallery of anti-Europe while running scared of negative publicity of leaving the ECHR.
Exactly, Corporeal.
It's a bit of cheapskate electioneering. We'll see plenty of that - from all sides - over the next seven months or so.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 18m 18 minutes ago Scottish government says it would try to block any UK withdrawal from European human rights law.
That would be amusing - the M74 would be packed full of law breaking immigrants heading north to avoid deportation.
And we all know Salmond's record on that sort of thing. People won't forget about his handling of the Libyan case..
"Somalian Rapist flees to Scotland - arrives to civic reception"
And both Labour and SNP can jostle to explain why third world immigration is good. Despite what everyone else thinks. Must be the vibrancy and diversity it brings to rape cases.
On HRA / ECHR - Scrapping a load of fundamental Civil Liberties is insane.
Sensible Tories know it's insane, as Ken Clarke articulated today.
There is absolutely no move to scrap any civil liberties - to claim otherwise is just wrong.
There is a plan to rebalance the way human rights legislation interacts with the rest of our legal system. It is about parliamentary and legal sovereignty.
Dominic Grieve has just been interviewed on SkyNews giving numerous practical reasons as to why the Tories plans cannot be introduced. Think Cameron should have listened to Dominic before the Tories started to discuss a policy that is basically rubbish.
Wow - Is Dominic Grieve god or something?
No, but I believe him to be substantially better informed than Grayling......
He is also bitter because he lost his job.
Possibly - but he hasn't come across as bitter in his interviews and has been consistent in his position on this - which seems a lot more robust than Grayling's.....
Consistency is a very good thing - when it is right. I think Grieve is consistently a lawyer rather than a politician - it still makes him as fallible as the next man. The notion that the legal profession is above reproach is, to my mind, somewhat bizarre. He is clearly peeved at losing his job and I believe that is affecting his judgement.
On HRA / ECHR - Scrapping a load of fundamental Civil Liberties is insane.
Sensible Tories know it's insane, as Ken Clarke articulated today.
There is absolutely no move to scrap any civil liberties - to claim otherwise is just wrong.
There is a plan to rebalance the way human rights legislation interacts with the rest of our legal system. It is about parliamentary and legal sovereignty.
Dominic Grieve has just been interviewed on SkyNews giving numerous practical reasons as to why the Tories plans cannot be introduced. Think Cameron should have listened to Dominic before the Tories started to discuss a policy that is basically rubbish.
Wow - Is Dominic Grieve god or something?
No, but I believe him to be substantially better informed than Grayling......
He is also bitter because he lost his job.
Possibly - but he hasn't come across as bitter in his interviews and has been consistent in his position on this - which seems a lot more robust than Grayling's.....
He is clearly peeved at losing his job and I believe that is affecting his judgement.
How can it be, since his judgement does not appear to have changed from when he still had his job?
On HRA / ECHR - Scrapping a load of fundamental Civil Liberties is insane.
Sensible Tories know it's insane, as Ken Clarke articulated today.
There is absolutely no move to scrap any civil liberties - to claim otherwise is just wrong.
There is a plan to rebalance the way human rights legislation interacts with the rest of our legal system. It is about parliamentary and legal sovereignty.
Dominic Grieve has just been interviewed on SkyNews giving numerous practical reasons as to why the Tories plans cannot be introduced. Think Cameron should have listened to Dominic before the Tories started to discuss a policy that is basically rubbish.
Wow - Is Dominic Grieve god or something?
No, but I believe him to be substantially better informed than Grayling......
He is also bitter because he lost his job.
Possibly - but he hasn't come across as bitter in his interviews and has been consistent in his position on this - which seems a lot more robust than Grayling's.....
Consistency is a very good thing - when it is right. I think Grieve is consistently a lawyer rather than a politician - it still makes him as fallible as the next man. The notion that the legal profession is above reproach is, to my mind, somewhat bizarre. He is clearly peeved at losing his job and I believe that is affecting his judgement.
You have it backwards. Grieve lost his job, because of his judgement.
It would be a lot harder for the Tories to make this election pitch if Grieve was still in post.
I don't see any great menace caused by the European Convention on Human Rights, though it comes out with bad decisions too frequently. Nor do I see any great virtue from a narrow British perspective in having our laws vetted by unelected highly political judges in Strasbourg (as opposed to unelected highly political judges in London).
So I see this as a matter of practicality:
1) it would be a complete ballache to unravel the current state of affairs, to no apparent great domestic advantage; and
2) Britain effectively withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights would send a terrible signal to those countries in the eastern half of the continent where substantial human rights concerns remain. Do we really want to undermine our foreign policy objectives in those countries?
Still, I expect it will help the Conservatives recover a few more kipper flirters.
Restoring Parliamentary sovereignty over these issues is surely a credible position to hold.
And we are not withdrawing from the principles of the ECHR in any way - merely some of the mechanisms surrounding it. In many ways, we would be going back to what was intended when the ECHR was created. I think we can still hold our heads up when it comes to human rights round the world.
They ruled that the ban on prisoners having the vote contravened their human rights because it was a blanket across the board ban.
That was the decision in Hurst. Making sense of what the Strasbourg Court has ruled on prisoner voting rights, however, is not that easy. In Frodl v Austria[2010] ECHR 508 the court seemed to suggest that a prisoner could only be deprived of the vote if they had committed political offences or offences in relation to elections.
'Under the Hirst test, besides ruling out automatic and blanket restrictions it is an essential element that the decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a judge, taking into account the particular circumstances, and that there must be a link between the offence committed and issues relating to elections and democratic institutions' (at [34], cf. [25]-[26]).
That was a plainly preposterous decision, and one which the court appears to have retreated from in more recent cases.
On the broader issue, the Tories' plans are sensible in part, and utterly bonkers in others. We live interesting times.
What are the mechanics of renegotiating the ECHR? Does everyone have a veto? When Cameron was talking about renegotiating the EU there was talk that Merkel would be a powerful ally, but theory didn't stand up well when it was put to the test over Juncker. But presumably Putin would be sympathetic?
All parties to the Convention must agree to any amendment.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
On HRA / ECHR - Scrapping a load of fundamental Civil Liberties is insane.
Sensible Tories know it's insane, as Ken Clarke articulated today.
There is absolutely no move to scrap any civil liberties - to claim otherwise is just wrong.
There is a plan to rebalance the way human rights legislation interacts with the rest of our legal system. It is about parliamentary and legal sovereignty.
Dominic Grieve has just been interviewed on SkyNews giving numerous practical reasons as to why the Tories plans cannot be introduced. Think Cameron should have listened to Dominic before the Tories started to discuss a policy that is basically rubbish.
Wow - Is Dominic Grieve god or something?
No, but I believe him to be substantially better informed than Grayling......
He is also bitter because he lost his job.
Possibly - but he hasn't come across as bitter in his interviews and has been consistent in his position on this - which seems a lot more robust than Grayling's.....
He is clearly peeved at losing his job and I believe that is affecting his judgement.
How can it be, since his judgement does not appear to have changed from when he still had his job?
Consistently in this case is a misnomer for stubborn.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
But what are those rights? How would you define them? Would you re-examine them few years?
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
I see where you are going here and it makes no sense. At the end of the day - the will of the people has to be supreme - even when [ judged by later generations] they get it 'wrong'.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
In which case you must be opposed to the current situation. The Crown could denounce the Convention tomorrow, Parliament could repeal the 1998 Act, and pass a further statute providing for the execution of the first born without trial. Fundamental rights that cannot be stripped by politicians are incompatible with the cardinal feature of the British constitutional settlement, the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. Even the Convention itself (art. 15) allows for derogations from most of its substantive provisions '[i]n time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.' The Blair Government attempted to derogate from art. 5(1) of the Convention by the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, S.I. 2001/3644. The Statutory Instrument was subsequently quashed by the Appellate Committee of House of Lords (although see the dissenting judgment of Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe).
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
Plato - I got a very similar answer from fitalass when I complained about heathrow transit times. I wonder what high heeled Bev would have to say on the matter.
In fact, I suspect that there are many people who will be voting Tory and Lib Dem on 7 May who currently aren’t even aware themselves that they’ll be voting Tory or Lib Dem on 7 May. The most important demographic in the forthcoming election will not the C1s or C2s but the PAs, the Paul the Apostle voters who will experience a polling-booth conversion.
On HRA / ECHR - Scrapping a load of fundamental Civil Liberties is insane.
Sensible Tories know it's insane, as Ken Clarke articulated today.
There is absolutely no move to scrap any civil liberties - to claim otherwise is just wrong.
There is a plan to rebalance the way human rights legislation interacts with the rest of our legal system. It is about parliamentary and legal sovereignty.
Dominic Grieve has just been interviewed on SkyNews giving numerous practical reasons as to why the Tories plans cannot be introduced. Think Cameron should have listened to Dominic before the Tories started to discuss a policy that is basically rubbish.
Wow - Is Dominic Grieve god or something?
No, but I believe him to be substantially better informed than Grayling......
He is also bitter because he lost his job.
Possibly - but he hasn't come across as bitter in his interviews and has been consistent in his position on this - which seems a lot more robust than Grayling's.....
He is clearly peeved at losing his job and I believe that is affecting his judgement.
How can it be, since his judgement does not appear to have changed from when he still had his job?
Consistently in this case is a misnomer for stubborn.
Or principled.....which admittedly can be a handicap in a politician.
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
I sometimes like to speculate what things we currently permit, or prohibit, which will be viewed as morally repugnant by a future society.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
I see where you are going here and it makes no sense. At the end of the day - the will of the people has to be supreme - even when [ judged by later generations] they get it 'wrong'.
Two questions:
1. Should parliament be able to strip the vote from ginger haired people?
2. In a fractured FPTP system (like the one we have now) it is quite possible for a party to get a majority in the HoC with the support of 25% of the voters or less; would you describe their decision to strip the vote from ginger haired people as the will of the people?
No, because the deficit or the perception of high/low spending does not have anything to do with the economic competence ratings of both parties imo.
Labour is viewed as economically incompetent simply because the economy crashed in 2008 on their watch. Simple as that. No matter how "tough" Labour sound on cutting spending, not only does it rule out any popular policies or raison d'etre, but it doesn't even address the cause of the economic competence problem; the only way that could be done would be to somehow erase the memory of the financial crisis. It baffles me why Ed Balls can't see this, and why he continues to unconvincingly posture about "tough spending choices" and only manage to send the poll ratings even lower.
PB apparently got bored of the music so started on the finer details of human rights.
You're a classy lot.
Well we did recommend a few bands to listen to and you did not like one of them. Said it was getting in the way of listening to Oasis.( who would have been good, if they had someone who could sing)
As for the human rights conversation, it is right wingers getting excited about something that is not going to happen.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
In which case you must be opposed to the current situation. The Crown could denounce the Convention tomorrow, Parliament could repeal the 1998 Act, and pass a further statute providing for the execution of the first born without trial. Fundamental rights that cannot be stripped by politicians are incompatible with the cardinal feature of the British constitutional settlement, the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. Even the Convention itself (art. 15) allows for derogations from most of its substantive provisions '[i]n time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.' The Blair Government attempted to derogate from art. 5(1) of the Convention by the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, S.I. 2001/3644. The Statutory Instrument was subsequently quashed by the Appellate Committee of House of Lords (although see the dissenting judgment of Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe).
Well said. In practice, following ECHR withdrawal, I would expect the Law Lords to see it as their job to protect "human rights" including paying heed to ECHR judgments, followed by further legislation specifically preventing them from doing so, interpretation of that legislation and so forth, ending with the direct election of Law Lords & the gridlock our cousins across the pond know all about.
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
I sometimes like to speculate what things we currently permit, or prohibit, which will be viewed as morally repugnant by a future society.
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
I sometimes like to speculate what things we currently permit, or prohibit, which will be viewed as morally repugnant by a future society.
Social Anthropology has done a good job of documenting the highly variable but eminently liveable moral codes around the world, but some crimes are so nearly universal as to make even the most extreme relativist pause for thought - incest, for example.
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
While you can say that about people in the dim and distant past, I think that a great many people chose to vote for the Nazi party because it would improve their lot economically, and they weren't too bothered if some other group got it in the neck.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
In which case you must be opposed to the current situation. The Crown could denounce the Convention tomorrow, Parliament could repeal the 1998 Act, and pass a further statute providing for the execution of the first born without trial. Fundamental rights that cannot be stripped by politicians are incompatible with the cardinal feature of the British constitutional settlement, the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. Even the Convention itself (art. 15) allows for derogations from most of its substantive provisions '[i]n time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.' The Blair Government attempted to derogate from art. 5(1) of the Convention by the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001, S.I. 2001/3644. The Statutory Instrument was subsequently quashed by the Appellate Committee of House of Lords (although see the dissenting judgment of Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe).
Thank you for your informative response.
I would like to see a written constitution or Bill or Rights that would require a referendum to amend.
In the good old days (i.e. the period before about 1983), the government in Westminster typically enjoyed the votes of a very substantial plurality of the people. In the current world, it is quite possible that the Crown in Parliament enjoys the support of less than a quarter of the voters - and with the rise of UKIP, it is possible we see a Labour majority with 35% of the vote and a 60% turnout - i.e. barely more than 20% of the electorate. I do not consider them to have a democratic mandate to alter the rights of citizens, or - for that matter - transfer sovereignty away from the British people and courts.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
To be pedantic, some states decided to ban slavery. Up to the nineteenth century it seems to have universally been accepted as part of the natural order, and although there was a famous court case that stated that slavery was not enforceable in England, that seems to have no bearing on the colonies.
I just find Oasis a bit - And...? It's tunelessness at times can be quite pleasant, along with the terrible Gallagher Bros singing.
What would you recommend?
I've got Whatever, and only have Whatever in my Favourites [along with 1300 others, so Oasis clearly aren't anywhere near my Top 300 Artists, they're probably down at about 380 of 420].
I quite liked Champagne Supernova for a while, then deleted it. Wonderwall by Mike Flower's Pops however is in my Favourites! A great spoof and better than the original.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
I see where you are going here and it makes no sense. At the end of the day - the will of the people has to be supreme - even when [ judged by later generations] they get it 'wrong'.
Two questions:
1. Should parliament be able to strip the vote from ginger haired people?
2. In a fractured FPTP system (like the one we have now) it is quite possible for a party to get a majority in the HoC with the support of 25% of the voters or less; would you describe their decision to strip the vote from ginger haired people as the will of the people?
It's a crazy question - the fact is technically they can, if there is a majority. Of course in the end all government rests on consent. your alternative seems to be a naive belief that the ECHR is a gouping of the 'great and the good' who should decide the law in the UK. Quite bizarre.
Just goes to show what a complete idiot Cameron was to have one in Scotland, as many repeatedly told us, loud and often.
Oh, wait......
Lets hope the Catalans are braver than the Scots
Hi Malcolm. Welcome back.
Shortly before the referendum I was listening to an interesting program on which a Catalan journalist indicated that the locals were very pleased with the way the referendum was going. They weren't much fussed about the result. In fact I got the impression that they rather hoped for a narrow No vote, because then they could then say to the Madrid Government 'See - they had a democratic referendum in the UK and the world didn't end, nobody got killed, and very few eggs were thrown. So what's your problem?'
The problem however, as we all know, is that it's pretty damn near certain the Catalans would vote for independence, so granting a referendum is as good as granting independence.
Madrid is in a bit of a fix really, unless it can come up with a way of rigging the vote. Perhaps it could restrict the vote to Rael Madrid season ticket holders?
Which parts would you describe as sensible and which bonkers?
*The notion that Britain will somehow be able to negotiate a status no other party to the Convention has is utterly unreal. *The claim that under the proposals, '[t]he UK Courts, not Strasbourg, will have the final say in interpreting Convention Rights, as clarified by Parliament' is already the case. It is not Vinter v United Kingdom, but the Attorney General's Reference in McLoughlin that applies in England and Wales. *The proposal that 'a new Parliamentary procedure [will be introduced] to formally consider the judgement' is incompatible with the rule of law and the separation of powers. If Strasbourg judgments are merely to be persuasive precedent, it is unacceptable for Parliament to be able to pick and choose which have status as persuasive precedent. Judgments of the Strasbourg Court should be treated in the same way that judgments of the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of the United States currently are by the courts. *Re-writing article 8 is the worst of both worlds. There are two logical positions. (1) That article 8 requires the courts to make political decisions that should be made by the legislature or the executive, as the case may be. In which case, it should be omitted from the new Bill of Rights entirely. (2) There is no problem with the courts making such decisions. In which case, article 8 should be retained in its current form. *The proposals display a hopelessly naïve attitude to the position vis-à-vis Luxembourg. For example, asylum and immigration is now an EU competence, so even if article 8 were repealed, British legislation would still have to be interpreted in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, regardless of whether we vetoed the EU's accession to the ECHR. The proposals may also provoke more judicial activism from the Luxembourg Court, whose rulings do have direct effect in the UK under s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
The proposal to mandate a textual rather than a purposive interpretation of the Convention is to be welcomed and accords with traditional approaches to statutory interpretation. The alternative pledge to withdraw from Strasbourg is likewise to be applauded, although I very much doubt the Conservatives would actually be prepared to do it.
Overall, a lot of incoherence and muddled thinking, with one or two positive elements.
I just find Oasis a bit - And...? It's tunelessness at times can be quite pleasant, along with the terrible Gallagher Bros singing.
What would you recommend?
I've got Whatever, and only have Whatever in my Favourites [along with 1300 others, so Oasis clearly aren't anywhere near my Top 300 Artists, they're probably down at about 380 of 420].
I quite liked Champagne Supernova for a while, then deleted it. Wonderwall by Mike Flower's Pops however is in my Favourites! A great spoof and better than the original.
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
While you can say that about people in the dim and distant past, I think that a great many people chose to vote for the Nazi party because it would improve their lot economically, and they weren't too bothered if some other group got it in the neck.
I don't see why I shouldn't judge that.
Of course that is your right and you too will no doubt be judged for some of your silly beliefs by the wise ones who succeed you 50 years down the road. Either way it's a pretty useless exercise unless you enjoy the warm glow of moral supremacy over those operating in a different time and place.
It really was colossally bad luck that a rent boy recognised him. A Lib Dem for Christ's Sake? The Venn Diagram intersection for LD MP/Rent Boy/Politically Aware must be vanishingly small.
I would like to see a written constitution or Bill or Rights that would require a referendum to amend.
In the good old days (i.e. the period before about 1983), the government in Westminster typically enjoyed the votes of a very substantial plurality of the people. In the current world, it is quite possible that the Crown in Parliament enjoys the support of less than a quarter of the voters - and with the rise of UKIP, it is possible we see a Labour majority with 35% of the vote and a 60% turnout - i.e. barely more than 20% of the electorate. I do not consider them to have a democratic mandate to alter the rights of citizens, or - for that matter - transfer sovereignty away from the British people and courts.
I seem to be taking myself towards PR...
There are many problems with this line of argument, but consider this: by far the most appalling government proposal in terms of damaging human rights in recent times in the UK was the proposal for 90-day detention without trial. That proposal was made by a government with a substantial popular mandate. It wasn't the ECHR which saved the country from that abomination, it was parliament. What's more, the government certified that the abomination was compatible with the Human Rights Act, which turned out to be useless in the most obvious test it has had to face.
This seems to demonstrate that the perceived protection of the Human Rights Act doesn't actually work, but parliamentary oversight does. That may not always be the case, of course, but we do live in a mature democracy with generally decent politicians, and with a free and feisty press (despite the best efforts of Hacked Off to shackle it). That protection may not be perfect, but it seems to work pretty damned well, and has done for centuries.
Great video. I honestly can't tell one Oasis song from another.
Then again, I'm like that with Mads Langer - I've got two of his albums and it's like nice wallpaper. Normally I bin stuff like this, but it's rather soothing when reading a book.
Mads Langer's Beauty Of The Dark - you may quite like it. This track is a bit like Nickleback or other rock/strong male vocal bands.
I just find Oasis a bit - And...? It's tunelessness at times can be quite pleasant, along with the terrible Gallagher Bros singing.
What would you recommend?
I've got Whatever, and only have Whatever in my Favourites [along with 1300 others, so Oasis clearly aren't anywhere near my Top 300 Artists, they're probably down at about 380 of 420].
I quite liked Champagne Supernova for a while, then deleted it. Wonderwall by Mike Flower's Pops however is in my Favourites! A great spoof and better than the original.
Well said. In practice, following ECHR withdrawal, I would expect the Law Lords to see it as their job to protect "human rights" including paying heed to ECHR judgments, followed by further legislation specifically preventing them from doing so, interpretation of that legislation and so forth, ending with the direct election of Law Lords & the gridlock our cousins across the pond know all about.
The judiciary, regardless of the personal views of its members, will respect whatever Parliament decides. In reality, even if these incoherent proposals pass, the courts will still be doing a very similar job to the one they are doing today. Presumably the most important remedies granted by the 1998 Act will remain, such as damages for breaches of the new Bill of Rights, declarations of incompatibility, and the obligation on public authorities to comply with the Bill of Rights etc..
In fact, I suspect that there are many people who will be voting Tory and Lib Dem on 7 May who currently aren’t even aware themselves that they’ll be voting Tory or Lib Dem on 7 May. The most important demographic in the forthcoming election will not the C1s or C2s but the PAs, the Paul the Apostle voters who will experience a polling-booth conversion.
Serious, to the extent that Cameron's policy is serious. Putin is one of the people Cameron will have to convince if he wants to change the way the ECHR works, which is apparently his plan. Probably the easiest of the 46.
Well, Cameron had no trouble convincing 27 of them to block Juncker, did he...oh, hang on...
Some praise from me for the Lib Dems. A policy in line with classical liberalism at their Conference. Legalise Prostitution "Approaches which criminalise the purchase of sexual services but not, overtly, the workers themselves, criminalise otherwise law abiding people and divert criminal justice resources away from serious harms in society, including young people in care homes at risk of grooming, victims of trafficking, migrant workers in domestic and sometimes sexual servitude." Some might call it brave - will it get media headlines? http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-human-trafficking-must-be-an-important-party-of-safer-sex-work-strategy-42696.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
It really was colossally bad luck that a rent boy recognised him. A Lib Dem for Christ's Sake? The Venn Diagram intersection for LD MP/Rent Boy/Politically Aware must be vanishingly small.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
I see where you are going here and it makes no sense. At the end of the day - the will of the people has to be supreme - even when [ judged by later generations] they get it 'wrong'.
Two questions:
1. Should parliament be able to strip the vote from ginger haired people?
2. In a fractured FPTP system (like the one we have now) it is quite possible for a party to get a majority in the HoC with the support of 25% of the voters or less; would you describe their decision to strip the vote from ginger haired people as the will of the people?
It's a crazy question - the fact is technically they can, if there is a majority. Of course in the end all government rests on consent. your alternative seems to be a naive belief that the ECHR is a gouping of the 'great and the good' who should decide the law in the UK. Quite bizarre.
Harman would have a heart attack, Emily from Islington would probably have a stroke on TV and RedEd would call for a public inquiry (judge led) into the candidate selection process....
Has a tinge of the infamous Straight Choice by election campaign of Mr Hughes.
There are many problems with this line of argument, but consider this: by far the most appalling government proposal in terms of damaging human rights in recent times in the UK was the proposal for 90-day detention without trial. That proposal was made by a government with a substantial popular mandate. It wasn't the ECHR which saved the country from that abomination, it was parliament. What's more, the government certified that the abomination was compatible with the Human Rights Act, which turned out to be useless in the most obvious test it has had to face.
This seems to demonstrate that the perceived protection of the Human Rights Act doesn't actually work, but parliamentary oversight does. That may not always be the case, of course, but we do live in a mature democracy with generally decent politicians, and with a free and feisty press (despite the best efforts of Hacked Off to shackle it). That protection may not be perfect, but it seems to work pretty damned well, and has done for centuries.
Hang on a second. A ministerial statement under s. 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, certifying that the provisions of a Bill are compatible with the Convention, does not bind the courts, who have jurisdiction to make a declaration of incompatibility in relation to that Bill. That the Blairish Home Secretary of the day issued such a certificate is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I agree that Parliament, rather than the courts, has historically been the institution which has defended the liberties of the subject against the executive. The problem is that the current batch of Parliamentarians do not believe in the liberty of the subject, as much of the legislation they have passed convincingly demonstrates.
Didn't the Kippers have this as a manifesto thingy in GE2010? I'm sure I mentioned on here at the time saying I was all for legalising the sex trade.
It's none of my business if someone wants to sell sex or buy it. Taking it out of the shadows seems perfectly sensible and we can tax it! I did say that if an HMG could tax sex - it would...
Some praise from me for the Lib Dems. A policy in line with classical liberalism at their Conference. Legalise Prostitution "Approaches which criminalise the purchase of sexual services but not, overtly, the workers themselves, criminalise otherwise law abiding people and divert criminal justice resources away from serious harms in society, including young people in care homes at risk of grooming, victims of trafficking, migrant workers in domestic and sometimes sexual servitude." Some might call it brave - will it get media headlines? http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-human-trafficking-must-be-an-important-party-of-safer-sex-work-strategy-42696.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Most Lib Dems find themselves in an embarrassing position.
Let's not forget the coalition was not IMPOSED upon them, but voted upon them at the Birmingham special conference in May 2010. And indeed by an enormous majority, which Clegg, to give him his due, immediately remarked upon at the conference saying that he wished it hadn't (the majority) been so 'North Korean'
This, combined with the fact that most of the more awkward members have already left means that most Lib Dems know what is likely to happen; but don't think that means they accept their fate.
And don't think that 8% is a reality. The actual result at the GE will be a disaster compared to 2010, but 15% is still more likely than 10% and the LD campaigning abilities will still enable them to hold between 30 and 40 seats. There will even be the odd gain!
At the moment many voters see the need to exact some sort of 'revenge' on the Lib Dems; as the day nears, some at least will start to realise that they will only be harming themselves.
Well I almost made it to the end of that one Hucks. I sense some of you may be concerned that I'm in the middle of a oasis youtube overdose - for the record, I've now got a Prince CD on, so panic over.
Hang on a second. A ministerial statement under s. 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, certifying that the provisions of a Bill are compatible with the Convention, does not bind the courts, who have jurisdiction to make a declaration of incompatibility in relation to that Bill. That the Blairish Home Secretary of the day issued such a certificate is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Whether some putative legal challenge would have worked, I don't know, but the record is not good.
Harman would have a heart attack, Emily from Islington would probably have a stroke on TV and RedEd would call for a public inquiry (judge led) into the candidate selection process....
Has a tinge of the infamous Straight Choice by election campaign of Mr Hughes.
I rather like Robbie Williams lyrics when Guy Chambers is in a funny mood. I didn't realise how many of his tracks I had until recently - a lot. I'd never have him down as someone whose music I've consciously bought.
Uplifting boppy music is a real favourite of mine. The sort you can dance about the garden to. Or zoom around with the hoover.
Florence and the machine do have a very dark side to their music, but this is the norm these days rather than an exception. That's why I like the new wave of house bands like Clean Bandit (M&S ad) whose music has a much more positive and uplifting vibe (to me).
Oasis lyrics are pretty nonsensical -but fantastic songs imo nonetheless.
I think I'm vaguely pro if it's a genuine attempt to ensure that we're all shouldering the burden of paying off the national debt. Not sure it would turn out that way though.
Didn't the Kippers have this as a manifesto thingy in GE2010? I'm sure I mentioned on here at the time saying I was all for legalising the sex trade.
It's none of my business if someone wants to sell sex or buy it. Taking it out of the shadows seems perfectly sensible and we can tax it! I did say that if an HMG could tax sex - it would...
Some praise from me for the Lib Dems. A policy in line with classical liberalism at their Conference. Legalise Prostitution "Approaches which criminalise the purchase of sexual services but not, overtly, the workers themselves, criminalise otherwise law abiding people and divert criminal justice resources away from serious harms in society, including young people in care homes at risk of grooming, victims of trafficking, migrant workers in domestic and sometimes sexual servitude." Some might call it brave - will it get media headlines? http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-human-trafficking-must-be-an-important-party-of-safer-sex-work-strategy-42696.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Didn't the Kippers have this as a manifesto thingy in GE2010? I'm sure I mentioned on here at the time saying I was all for legalising the sex trade.
It's none of my business if someone wants to sell sex or buy it. Taking it out of the shadows seems perfectly sensible and we can tax it! I did say that if an HMG could tax sex - it would...
Some praise from me for the Lib Dems. A policy in line with classical liberalism at their Conference. Legalise Prostitution "Approaches which criminalise the purchase of sexual services but not, overtly, the workers themselves, criminalise otherwise law abiding people and divert criminal justice resources away from serious harms in society, including young people in care homes at risk of grooming, victims of trafficking, migrant workers in domestic and sometimes sexual servitude." Some might call it brave - will it get media headlines? http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-human-trafficking-must-be-an-important-party-of-safer-sex-work-strategy-42696.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
UKIP have had contradictory policies on almost everything except the EC. Which they say that Ed Miliband will give a referendum on so it does not matter if Labour form the next Govt....
Actually heard Farage say that a year or so ago! But maybe he has changed his mind?
Harman would have a heart attack, Emily from Islington would probably have a stroke on TV and RedEd would call for a public inquiry (judge led) into the candidate selection process....
Has a tinge of the infamous Straight Choice by election campaign of Mr Hughes.
I rather like Robbie Williams lyrics when Guy Chambers is in a funny mood. I didn't realise how many of his tracks I had until recently - a lot. I'd never have him down as someone whose music I've consciously bought.
Uplifting boppy music is a real favourite of mine. The sort you can dance about the garden to. Or zoom around with the hoover.
Florence and the machine do have a very dark side to their music, but this is the norm these days rather than an exception. That's why I like the new wave of house bands like Clean Bandit (M&S ad) whose music has a much more positive and uplifting vibe (to me).
Oasis lyrics are pretty nonsensical -but fantastic songs imo nonetheless.
"Similarly on the health service or taxation or education the Lib Dem on the panel could shake his or her head and say that the Tories or Labour had made quite a mess of things. The impression created was that the Lib Dems were the party for reasonable people who liked to shake their heads sadly."
Saw some strident chaps on the news arguing for the ECHR, including the slimmed down Lord Falconer, and some lawyer I didn't recognise who believed the front line of a war was precisely where we needed the ECHR. He was an articulate speaker (the lawyer) but I'm not sure that's a line many people would agree with.
Whether some putative legal challenge would have worked, I don't know, but the record is not good.
It is an interesting issue. One of the most disappointing things about post-1998 human rights case law is that the judiciary has been utterly unprepared to confront the government on the major civil liberties cases of the day. The celebrated but much misunderstood judgment in A v others v Secretary of State for the Home Department implied, as Lord Hoffmann, dissenting, said it would, that the human rights defect in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 could be cured by extending the power of internment then applicable to foreign nationals to British citizens. The case law on control orders is an abdication of judicial responsibility, and had descended into complete sophistry before their repeal. Would 90 days have been too far for the English courts? Certainly for the great Lord Hoffmann, but there are many authoritarian judges, such as the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who is a menace to civil liberty.
It is difficult to see the grounds on which Strasbourg could have objected to 90 day detention. Some civil law countries on the continent allow for the detention of suspects for several years without trial under the authority of an investigating magistrate. Provided each renewal of detention in police custody had been approved by a District Judge, which was, of course, the proposal, it would almost certainly have been compatible. That said, as always with Strasbourg, if there had been a will, there would have been a way.
"Similarly on the health service or taxation or education the Lib Dem on the panel could shake his or her head and say that the Tories or Labour had made quite a mess of things. The impression created was that the Lib Dems were the party for reasonable people who liked to shake their heads sadly."
"Similarly on the health service or taxation or education the Lib Dem on the panel could shake his or her head and say that the Tories or Labour had made quite a mess of things. The impression created was that the Lib Dems were the party for reasonable people who liked to shake their heads sadly."
The LibDems need a period in quiet opposition, rebuilding and more importantly sorting out amongst themselves what they really stand for - Gladstonian, Orange-bookery or Lloyd George Social Liberalism. Can I suggest they rebrand as plain-old Liberal, or even New Liberal - might help the healing process.
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
I see where you are going here and it makes no sense. At the end of the day - the will of the people has to be supreme - even when [ judged by later generations] they get it 'wrong'.
Two questions:
1. Should parliament be able to strip the vote from ginger haired people?
2. In a fractured FPTP system (like the one we have now) it is quite possible for a party to get a majority in the HoC with the support of 25% of the voters or less; would you describe their decision to strip the vote from ginger haired people as the will of the people?
It's a crazy question - the fact is technically they can, if there is a majority. Of course in the end all government rests on consent. your alternative seems to be a naive belief that the ECHR is a gouping of the 'great and the good' who should decide the law in the UK. Quite bizarre.
Why do you think I support the ECHR?
I have no idea - your whole position seems bizarre to me. I am a democrat. You apparently are happy to put your trust in a body which is not subject in any meaningful way to the will of the people of the country in which you live.
I thought that was a desperately cliched flick. Then again my visceral dislike of Mr Di Caprio knows no bounds. He gives me the creeps - and looks like he needs a good wash.
Interesting populus still has Labour ahead, though I suspect slightly more of its sample took place before Cameron's speech than yougov. We will need to wait for polls which were fully post speech to see if Cameron's bounce is sustained
"Similarly on the health service or taxation or education the Lib Dem on the panel could shake his or her head and say that the Tories or Labour had made quite a mess of things. The impression created was that the Lib Dems were the party for reasonable people who liked to shake their heads sadly."
I thought that was a desperately cliched flick. Then again my visceral dislike of Mr Di Caprio knows no bounds. He gives me the creeps - and looks like he needs a good wash.
Completely unrelated, but Leonardo DiCaprio has apparently pulled out of the film role of playing Steve Jobs in Danny Boyle's new project.
Maybe there'll be betting market on the replacement?
Hedge your imaginary market by buying the Wolf of wall street on Dvd.
F1's on the red button - I'm allowing myself leeway.
I used to watch that type of film, alone, in the cinema. Did that for over a decade. Just doesn't work anymore. But, heh, I've got my broadband - As long as I'm Civic eh?
Well I almost made it to the end of that one Hucks. I sense some of you may be concerned that I'm in the middle of a oasis youtube overdose - for the record, I've now got a Prince CD on, so panic over.
One of the bands who influenced Oasis was Slade, who were known at the time as being one of the best live bands around. If you have not heard the Slade Alive album, you have missed out.
"It's none of my business if someone wants to sell sex or buy it. Taking it out of the shadows seems perfectly sensible and we can tax it! I did say that if an HMG could tax sex - it would.."
It is taxable and always has been.
Any sex worker who submits their profits for taxation will have it assessed and taxed the same as any other trade or profession. I am sure that the number who do so is small in relation to the number actually engaged in this business, but HMRC has never been in any doubt about the tax status of their activities and on the odd occasions it has been tested in Court, their view has been upheld.
In government, Clegg and his colleagues suddenly found they had to defend complexity and account for mistakes or difficult choices. This is not easy, as those in the two bigger parties have long known. To make matters worse, Clegg discovered that no matter how many times he put on that sad face, and explained with the hint of a sigh why he has been misunderstood by vulgarians, it never made a difference.
and what a punchline
The rise of the Lib Dems prefigured and helped cause this fragmentation. For decades they talked of a more diverse set-up at Westminster and the need for a voting system to match the weakening of the two party system. In coalition since 2010 they have been extremely annoying at points but they have demonstrated that the world will not end – as some of us feared – if parties have to cooperate. Just at that point they find themselves ignored by the voters – which is much worse than being derided – and parked in the departure lounge of British national life.
Interesting populus still has Labour ahead, though I suspect slightly more of its sample took place before Cameron's speech than yougov. We will need to wait for polls which were fully post speech to see if Cameron's bounce is sustained
Nope, same time as yougov. I told you yesterday to wait till Monday before lighting fireworks.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
I thought that was a desperately cliched flick. Then again my visceral dislike of Mr Di Caprio knows no bounds. He gives me the creeps - and looks like he needs a good wash.
Completely unrelated, but Leonardo DiCaprio has apparently pulled out of the film role of playing Steve Jobs in Danny Boyle's new project.
Maybe there'll be betting market on the replacement?
Hedge your imaginary market by buying the Wolf of wall street on Dvd.
F1's on the red button - I'm allowing myself leeway.
I used to watch that type of film, alone, in the cinema. Did that for over a decade. Just doesn't work anymore. But, heh, I've got my broadband - As long as I'm Civic eh?
Saw some strident chaps on the news arguing for the ECHR, including the slimmed down Lord Falconer, and some lawyer I didn't recognise who believed the front line of a war was precisely where we needed the ECHR. He was an articulate speaker (the lawyer) but I'm not sure that's a line many people would agree with.
Comments
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
It's a bit of cheapskate electioneering. We'll see plenty of that - from all sides - over the next seven months or so.
And both Labour and SNP can jostle to explain why third world immigration is good. Despite what everyone else thinks. Must be the vibrancy and diversity it brings to rape cases.
It would be a lot harder for the Tories to make this election pitch if Grieve was still in post.
We want processes and systems that reflect national sovereignty and parliamentary oversight/decision making.
Of course it's entirely doable.
On the broader issue, the Tories' plans are sensible in part, and utterly bonkers in others. We live interesting times.
You're a classy lot.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
It was most interesting and culinary! IIRC it was in the light of the Killer Cucumber Crisis.
@Sunil_Prasannan's PhD re E.Coli came to the fore along with another chappy whose name escapes me.
There is no subject where PB's erudition fails to impress.
Do you believe in objective human rights?
It is always a mistake to judge those in the past in terms of present belief structures. There is no fundamental moral 'right or wrong' beyond that agreed by humanity and it is neither fixed nor permanent.
1. Should parliament be able to strip the vote from ginger haired people?
2. In a fractured FPTP system (like the one we have now) it is quite possible for a party to get a majority in the HoC with the support of 25% of the voters or less; would you describe their decision to strip the vote from ginger haired people as the will of the people?
Labour is viewed as economically incompetent simply because the economy crashed in 2008 on their watch. Simple as that. No matter how "tough" Labour sound on cutting spending, not only does it rule out any popular policies or raison d'etre, but it doesn't even address the cause of the economic competence problem; the only way that could be done would be to somehow erase the memory of the financial crisis. It baffles me why Ed Balls can't see this, and why he continues to unconvincingly posture about "tough spending choices" and only manage to send the poll ratings even lower.
As for the human rights conversation, it is right wingers getting excited about something that is not going to happen.
Do you expect another referendum, and if so when?
C'mon people - let's make sure they're entertained - let's up our game.
Team talk - Somebody post an interesting link please.
Btw, I have responded to your email. Thank you.
I don't see why I shouldn't judge that.
Ha ha!! - I so did say that!!!
I would like to see a written constitution or Bill or Rights that would require a referendum to amend.
In the good old days (i.e. the period before about 1983), the government in Westminster typically enjoyed the votes of a very substantial plurality of the people. In the current world, it is quite possible that the Crown in Parliament enjoys the support of less than a quarter of the voters - and with the rise of UKIP, it is possible we see a Labour majority with 35% of the vote and a 60% turnout - i.e. barely more than 20% of the electorate. I do not consider them to have a democratic mandate to alter the rights of citizens, or - for that matter - transfer sovereignty away from the British people and courts.
I seem to be taking myself towards PR...
What would you recommend?
I've got Whatever, and only have Whatever in my Favourites [along with 1300 others, so Oasis clearly aren't anywhere near my Top 300 Artists, they're probably down at about 380 of 420].
I quite liked Champagne Supernova for a while, then deleted it. Wonderwall by Mike Flower's Pops however is in my Favourites! A great spoof and better than the original.
The Venn Diagram intersection for LD MP/Rent Boy/Politically Aware must be vanishingly small.
Shortly before the referendum I was listening to an interesting program on which a Catalan journalist indicated that the locals were very pleased with the way the referendum was going. They weren't much fussed about the result. In fact I got the impression that they rather hoped for a narrow No vote, because then they could then say to the Madrid Government 'See - they had a democratic referendum in the UK and the world didn't end, nobody got killed, and very few eggs were thrown. So what's your problem?'
The problem however, as we all know, is that it's pretty damn near certain the Catalans would vote for independence, so granting a referendum is as good as granting independence.
Madrid is in a bit of a fix really, unless it can come up with a way of rigging the vote. Perhaps it could restrict the vote to Rael Madrid season ticket holders?
*The claim that under the proposals, '[t]he UK Courts, not Strasbourg, will have the final say in interpreting Convention Rights, as clarified by Parliament' is already the case. It is not Vinter v United Kingdom, but the Attorney General's Reference in McLoughlin that applies in England and Wales.
*The proposal that 'a new Parliamentary procedure [will be introduced] to formally consider the judgement' is incompatible with the rule of law and the separation of powers. If Strasbourg judgments are merely to be persuasive precedent, it is unacceptable for Parliament to be able to pick and choose which have status as persuasive precedent. Judgments of the Strasbourg Court should be treated in the same way that judgments of the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of the United States currently are by the courts.
*Re-writing article 8 is the worst of both worlds. There are two logical positions. (1) That article 8 requires the courts to make political decisions that should be made by the legislature or the executive, as the case may be. In which case, it should be omitted from the new Bill of Rights entirely. (2) There is no problem with the courts making such decisions. In which case, article 8 should be retained in its current form.
*The proposals display a hopelessly naïve attitude to the position vis-à-vis Luxembourg. For example, asylum and immigration is now an EU competence, so even if article 8 were repealed, British legislation would still have to be interpreted in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, regardless of whether we vetoed the EU's accession to the ECHR. The proposals may also provoke more judicial activism from the Luxembourg Court, whose rulings do have direct effect in the UK under s. 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
The proposal to mandate a textual rather than a purposive interpretation of the Convention is to be welcomed and accords with traditional approaches to statutory interpretation. The alternative pledge to withdraw from Strasbourg is likewise to be applauded, although I very much doubt the Conservatives would actually be prepared to do it.
Overall, a lot of incoherence and muddled thinking, with one or two positive elements.
http://youtu.be/SaeLKhRnkhQ
"Federal Conference is probably the best fun that you will ever have in your life."
http://www.libdemvoice.org/carons-guide-to-the-craziness-of-conference-updated-for-glasgow-2014-42631.html
This seems to demonstrate that the perceived protection of the Human Rights Act doesn't actually work, but parliamentary oversight does. That may not always be the case, of course, but we do live in a mature democracy with generally decent politicians, and with a free and feisty press (despite the best efforts of Hacked Off to shackle it). That protection may not be perfect, but it seems to work pretty damned well, and has done for centuries.
But a nap* like yersel wouldn't know that.
http://www.catalandictionary.org/diccionari/lookup.php?hl=en&lang=e&q=turnip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuZhnNR6vzc
Then again, I'm like that with Mads Langer - I've got two of his albums and it's like nice wallpaper. Normally I bin stuff like this, but it's rather soothing when reading a book.
Mads Langer's Beauty Of The Dark - you may quite like it. This track is a bit like Nickleback or other rock/strong male vocal bands.
Hodges moves from "the polls will show a Tory victory nearer the election" to "the Tories will win even if the polls say they won't".
It's called Denial.
Like! Well, Cameron had no trouble convincing 27 of them to block Juncker, did he...oh, hang on...
"Approaches which criminalise the purchase of sexual services but not, overtly, the workers themselves, criminalise otherwise law abiding people and divert criminal justice resources away from serious harms in society, including young people in care homes at risk of grooming, victims of trafficking, migrant workers in domestic and sometimes sexual servitude."
Some might call it brave - will it get media headlines?
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-human-trafficking-must-be-an-important-party-of-safer-sex-work-strategy-42696.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
Surely MP for MP, they must have a bigger proportion than the Tories or Labour?
“I’m just an ordinary white working class person,”
http://order-order.com/2014/10/03/labour-play-the-by-election-race-card-heywood-and-middleton-candidate-liz-mcinnes-white-is-ordinary/
Harman would have a heart attack, Emily from Islington would probably have a stroke on TV and RedEd would call for a public inquiry (judge led) into the candidate selection process....
Has a tinge of the infamous Straight Choice by election campaign of Mr Hughes.
It's none of my business if someone wants to sell sex or buy it. Taking it out of the shadows seems perfectly sensible and we can tax it! I did say that if an HMG could tax sex - it would...
Let's not forget the coalition was not IMPOSED upon them, but voted upon them at the Birmingham special conference in May 2010. And indeed by an enormous majority, which Clegg, to give him his due, immediately remarked upon at the conference saying that he wished it hadn't (the majority) been so 'North Korean'
This, combined with the fact that most of the more awkward members have already left means that most Lib Dems know what is likely to happen; but don't think that means they accept their fate.
And don't think that 8% is a reality. The actual result at the GE will be a disaster compared to 2010, but 15% is still more likely than 10% and the LD campaigning abilities will still enable them to hold between 30 and 40 seats. There will even be the odd gain!
At the moment many voters see the need to exact some sort of 'revenge' on the Lib Dems; as the day nears, some at least will start to realise that they will only be harming themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnJIb4A-DuY
I think I'm vaguely pro if it's a genuine attempt to ensure that we're all shouldering the burden of paying off the national debt. Not sure it would turn out that way though.
Actually heard Farage say that a year or so ago! But maybe he has changed his mind?
EDIT and how could I forget Icona Pop - All Night?
Maybe there'll be betting market on the replacement?
"Farewell Liberal Democrats, the party that changed British politics"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100288738/farewell-liberal-democrats-the-party-that-changed-british-politics
"Similarly on the health service or taxation or education the Lib Dem on the panel could shake his or her head and say that the Tories or Labour had made quite a mess of things. The impression created was that the Lib Dems were the party for reasonable people who liked to shake their heads sadly."
Saw some strident chaps on the news arguing for the ECHR, including the slimmed down Lord Falconer, and some lawyer I didn't recognise who believed the front line of a war was precisely where we needed the ECHR. He was an articulate speaker (the lawyer) but I'm not sure that's a line many people would agree with.
It is difficult to see the grounds on which Strasbourg could have objected to 90 day detention. Some civil law countries on the continent allow for the detention of suspects for several years without trial under the authority of an investigating magistrate. Provided each renewal of detention in police custody had been approved by a District Judge, which was, of course, the proposal, it would almost certainly have been compatible. That said, as always with Strasbourg, if there had been a will, there would have been a way.
Back from the lands of Alexander the Great now.
Picked up the 3 cats and a new rabbit.
Diet starts... tomorrow ^_~
Have you seen Brookes in The Times today - he's ace.
F1's on the red button - I'm allowing myself leeway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brnCVw85nw0
"It's none of my business if someone wants to sell sex or buy it. Taking it out of the shadows seems perfectly sensible and we can tax it! I did say that if an HMG could tax sex - it would.."
It is taxable and always has been.
Any sex worker who submits their profits for taxation will have it assessed and taxed the same as any other trade or profession. I am sure that the number who do so is small in relation to the number actually engaged in this business, but HMRC has never been in any doubt about the tax status of their activities and on the odd occasions it has been tested in Court, their view has been upheld.
Quite. and what a punchline
Mr. Briskin, early start tomorrow (6am). If the race start is changed that'll be decided after P3.
I told you yesterday to wait till Monday before lighting fireworks.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
I've watched it so many times but never fail to be gobsmacked at the hubris and self parodying that Enron did of themselves.
You can watch the whole thing on YouTube.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nicolas-sarkozy/11136192/Nicolas-Sarkozy-outlines-plan-to-save-France.html