"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.
This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."
Ummm. 35mph, no?
Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2
I think our top speed on motorways is too low. On most of the continent it is 130kph which is 80mph. I think with modern brakes and safety systems even that is on the low side. 90mph would be fine.
In towns 30mph is plenty. I am not a great fan of 20mph limits except near schools but where cars interact with pedestrians we should be more cautious.
Top speed of 80 is not unreasonable but dare I say it the move is down towards 60 because of climate change. 30 is plenty in town and even 20 in City centres
20mph in City centres is an aspiration, not a speed limit.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
But affected parties can still take legal action under the ECHR.
.. which can't be enforced, and would take many years to being. In any case I don't think the ECHR would be likely to rule against them, if there was some payment in 'bonds' which they could argue were 'fair' payment.
"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.
This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."
Ummm. 35mph, no?
Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2
I think our top speed on motorways is too low. On most of the continent it is 130kph which is 80mph. I think with modern brakes and safety systems even that is on the low side. 90mph would be fine.
In towns 30mph is plenty. I am not a great fan of 20mph limits except near schools but where cars interact with pedestrians we should be more cautious.
Top speed of 80 is not unreasonable but dare I say it the move is down towards 60 because of climate change. 30 is plenty in town and even 20 in City centres
20mph in City centres is an aspiration, not a speed limit.
Seemed to apply quite a lot in Edinburgh city centre when I was there last month
"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.
This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."
Ummm. 35mph, no?
Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2
I think our top speed on motorways is too low. On most of the continent it is 130kph which is 80mph. I think with modern brakes and safety systems even that is on the low side. 90mph would be fine.
In towns 30mph is plenty. I am not a great fan of 20mph limits except near schools but where cars interact with pedestrians we should be more cautious.
Did you say the "continent" ? You mean Europe ? And most of it is in the EU ?
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
Parliament could also amend the Human Rights Act or , guess what, abolish it.
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
Are they seriously saying you're not allowed to have relatives working at a media organisation?
I was listening a Radio 4 programme about the murder of the Russian Royal Family in 1917.. Corbyn as PM and a lot of what will come to pass in the UK if Corbyn becomes PM already has in Russia..
"The zone is calculated by increasing the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2 mph, before they face punishment.
This means in a 30mph speed zone, motorists can drive at 34mph without risk of being penalised."
Ummm. 35mph, no?
Personally I would reduce it to 5% plus 2
I think our top speed on motorways is too low. On most of the continent it is 130kph which is 80mph. I think with modern brakes and safety systems even that is on the low side. 90mph would be fine.
In towns 30mph is plenty. I am not a great fan of 20mph limits except near schools but where cars interact with pedestrians we should be more cautious.
Did you say the "continent" ? You mean Europe ? And most of it is in the EU ?
Yes. The bits I was driving on this summer were Holland and Italy, both of which had 130kph speed limits on motorways. Maybe I am not quite as rabid as you seem to think.
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
I am by no way an expert on Scottish politics but my understanding is that the SNP and SLAB, for want of a better word, loathe each other. I can not see that as a basis for co-operation.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
Parliament could also amend the Human Rights Act or , guess what, abolish it.
No one is more pro Human Rights than labour and now it should be abolished.
As I have said labour are descending into the abyss sadly
A Corbyn majority government would certainly aim to hammer the rich with higher taxes, renationalise the public utilities and the railways and move on from there, likely fudge Brexit as much as possible whether we are fully out of the EU and transition period or not on its election and take a largely isolationist approach to foreign policy other than condemning all US led and Israeli actions and building a special relationship with Mexico City and Caracas rather than DC.
At the moment if Corbyn wins it is more likely to be by being propped up by the SNP, Plaid, the Greens and maybe the LDs too but his aims eould remain the same
I wonder by what process a Corbyn Govt would be able to re nationalise the utilities? They could offer to pay a premium for the shares and so take control legally, but if they force a takeover at a price they want to pay then all I see is legal action. The consequences of that on FDI and national investment in industry would be horrendous.
Dead easy, just pass an Act of Parliament to grab the assets and 'pay' in some worthless bonds. Unlike the USA, and outside the EU, there would be very little legal or constitutional constraint on the sovereignty of parliament.
Of course it would be financially disastrous, but everyone other than John McDonnell and a few of his extreme-left nutter friends already knows that.
Yup. In the UK [ once we get back control !!!!!! ], Parliament can do anything. Even courts cannot overturn an act of Parliament. It can only "interpret" it.
And, only a simple majority is needed. The Brexiters are really making it easy.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
More specifically article 1 protocol 1 of the convention which requires States who are signed up to it to respect property rights. But I think a Corbyn government might just ignore such a ruling (as, in fairness, the current government has in respect of prisoners voting rights).
You can kiss the economy goodbye if a Corbyn government ignores an ECHR ruling on property rights. Remember also that any deal with the EU will probably also have clauses in it about property rights.
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
I am by no way an expert on Scottish politics but my understanding is that the SNP and SLAB, for want of a better word, loathe each other. I can not see that as a basis for co-operation.
I am friends with a former Labour MP who startled me but vehemently insisting that he would rather the SNP won than the Tories. I don't think he is as unusual in that view as you seem to think.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2 - ie two Supreme Court Judges ruled the Benefit Cap illegal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Also note that right now the two child limit for tax credits (new claims only) is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
Corbyn and labour are going backwards in Scotland
Corbyn got 7 times the Scottish MPs Ed Miliband did and he only really made inroads in Glasgow and the Central belt over the campaign
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Will the Supreme Court survive its first argument with a Corbynite government?
Okay, so I'm being silly again. But if you look at countries where freedoms have declined in the last couple of decades, then there is a common playbook: own the military, own the civil service, own the judiciary. If any of these give trouble, replace the troublemakers with your own loyalists.
This could only happen with a Blair-style majority for Corbyn - a S&D agreement or coalition wouldn't do it. But if you look at other dictators, they use a little power to cement the process. And Corbyn certainly likes dictators - at least certain ones.
To be frank, it's not Corbyn I'm worried about - it's the people around him.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
But affected parties can still take legal action under the ECHR.
.. which can't be enforced, and would take many years to being. In any case I don't think the ECHR would be likely to rule against them, if there was some payment in 'bonds' which they could argue were 'fair' payment.
Possibly. But when governments start getting embroiled in this sort of legal action, investors will flee and the cost of servicing the UK’s debt will increase significantly. That’s McDonnell’s plans down the toilet long before you have any judgment.
(And that’s assuming the government has got the best legal advice it can - from its A-G - the ineffable Chakrabati. And, yes I know she’s meant to be a whizz kid on human rights but that’s mainly in her own head. Anyone relying on her advice needs their head examining.)
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Will the Supreme Court survive its first argument with a Corbynite government?
Okay, so I'm being silly again. But if you look at countries where freedoms have declined in the last couple of decades, then there is a common playbook: own the military, own the civil service, own the judiciary. If any of these give trouble, replace the troublemakers with your own loyalists.
This could only happen with a Blair-style majority for Corbyn - a S&D agreement or coalition wouldn't do it. But if you look at other dictators, they use a little power to cement the process. And Corbyn certainly likes dictators - at least certain ones.
To be frank, it's not Corbyn I'm worried about - it's the people around him.
The American system for appointing JSCs always seems way too political to me. But the way our JSCs are appointed is based very heavily upon presumptions of good behaviour on the part of those doing the appointing. There really is no external controls at all.
I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.
We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.
That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.
I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.
The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.
There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.
If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.
Without the UK that strand of opinion will only get stronger, so when we inevitably go back in again we will go back in a lot weaker than we are now to what will be a lot more federalist as a result of our absense.
I find it amusing how many Remainers find it inevitable we will rejoin.
Why would it be inevitable? Why will we inevitably be in the EU but Canada won't inevitably be in the USA?
I think we will be Canada to the EU's USA and there are worse fates than that.
The EU is fundamentally different to the USA, and what’s the equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement between Canada and the US? Who are “we” in your scenario?
The GFA is going to force us to rejoin the EU?
The GFA means that the definition of “us” and “them” is necessarily fuzzy.
It really doesn’t. All it talks about is our continued partnership within the EU. The EU part is no longer valid, but the partnership bit is.
Yes it does:
recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.
Which part of Canada gives people US citizenship as a birthright?
The North West Angle
Very good, but that's US territory.
Sorry, you're right. Residents of the North West Angle are entitled to Canadian citizenship.
So territory that theoretically should belong to the smaller neighbour is actually controlled and officially part of the larger neighbour. However as a compromise the people born there are entitled to citizenship of the smaller neighbouring country that their land should be part of but technically isn't?
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Will the Supreme Court survive its first argument with a Corbynite government?
Okay, so I'm being silly again. But if you look at countries where freedoms have declined in the last couple of decades, then there is a common playbook: own the military, own the civil service, own the judiciary. If any of these give trouble, replace the troublemakers with your own loyalists.
This could only happen with a Blair-style majority for Corbyn - a S&D agreement or coalition wouldn't do it. But if you look at other dictators, they use a little power to cement the process. And Corbyn certainly likes dictators - at least certain ones.
To be frank, it's not Corbyn I'm worried about - it's the people around him.
Milne, McDonnell and Murray: a Trot, a Marxist and (until recently) a Communist.
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
Corbyn and labour are going backwards in Scotland
I think Scots are sophisticated voters, and willing to vote SNP at Holyrood, but Labour or even Tory to Westminster. That way their voice nationally is better heard.
Personally, I would be quite content to see the SNP hold the balance of power at Westminster.
A Corbyn government, especially one with a working majority, would be exceptionally disastrouu and any Tory complacenrly thinking ''oh well, five years and we would be back with a landslide' is delusional .The hard left has waited decades for a sniff of power, they will not give it up lightly. The antisemitism row is just a foretaste of how appalling the next Labour government will be
I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.
We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.
That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.
I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.
The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.
There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.
If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.
I view them as wolves in wolves clothing.
I totally disagree. There is much to admire in a wolf.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
But affected parties can still take legal action under the ECHR.
.. which can't be enforced, and would take many years to being. In any case I don't think the ECHR would be likely to rule against them, if there was some payment in 'bonds' which they could argue were 'fair' payment.
Possibly. But when governments start getting embroiled in this sort of legal action, investors will flee and the cost of servicing the UK’s debt will increase significantly. That’s McDonnell’s plans down the toilet long before you have any judgment.
(And that’s assuming the government has got the best legal advice it can - from its A-G - the ineffable Chakrabati. And, yes I know she’s meant to be a whizz kid on human rights but that’s mainly in her own head. Anyone relying on her advice needs their head examining.)
Oh, absolutely. Investors will start fleeing as soon as a Corbyn government looks imminent, and the economy will crash spectacularly in the first few months of a Corbyn government. The pattern is well established; we'd end up with rising inflation, strikes, a catastrophic drop in investment, a crashing currency, high unemployment, and a huge deficit.
All of that is obvious, except to McDonnell and the Corbynistas, and is why I said earlier that I thought the remaining sane Labour MPs won't want to be involved in a Corbyn government; they'll need to remain untainted so that when it's all over, they can start the long, arduous task of rebuilding the party.
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
That is entirely possible. A Corbyn government dependent upon the SNP to get its legislation through the Commons might just be slightly less dangerous than one that isn't. It's that bad.
We’d also have to depend upon the courage of moderate backbench Labour MPs to save us.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
No. Cameron put a law through Parliament for a Benefit cap of £23,000.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
There would still be a Security Service, just targeted at the US and Israel!
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
That is entirely possible. A Corbyn government dependent upon the SNP to get its legislation through the Commons might just be slightly less dangerous than one that isn't. It's that bad.
We’d also have to depend upon the courage of moderate backbench Labour MPs to save us.
Yep, we’d be doomed.
But with lots of interesting off the record chat about how we can't go on like this and maybe we need a new centre left party etc.
A Corbyn government, especially one with a working majority, would be exceptionally disastrouu and any Tory complacenrly thinking ''oh well, five years and we would be back with a landslide' is delusional .The hard left has waited decades for a sniff of power, they will not give it up lightly. The antisemitism row is just a foretaste of how appalling the next Labour government will be
A Corbyn government would be disastrous for the country but great for Tory council candidates
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
There would still be a Security Service, just targeted at the US and Israel!
That's the chaps and chapettes at Vauxhall. Thames are domestic only.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
No. Cameron put a law through Parliament for a Benefit cap of £23,000.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
It can't ultimately as Parliament is sovereign and we have already moved to replace the HRA with a British Bill of Rights although Brexit has delayed it.
Repeal and replace the Human Rights Act and it becomes a non issue and removes any means for the judiciary to try and overrule statute
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
So what?
America and Minnesota have the Northwest Angle.
The UK has Northern Ireland.
What the USA would be without one of its parts or what we would be without one is moot. We have those parts. We are not losing a part of us, the EU is losing the UK including Northern Ireland just as Canada doesn't have the Angle. But it will still be the EU, we will still be neighbours and NI residents will keep Irish citizenship just like the Angle has.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Intelligence is not going to be shared with Ministers if they think their sources will be compromised. That puts all of us, potentially, at risk. How can we be certain that the security services would be supported in their pursuit of, say, jihadis plotting against Britain when some in the leadership are friendly with jihadists or their ideological masters?
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
Corbyn and labour are going backwards in Scotland
I think Scots are sophisticated voters, and willing to vote SNP at Holyrood, but Labour or even Tory to Westminster. That way their voice nationally is better heard.
Personally, I would be quite content to see the SNP hold the balance of power at Westminster.
That is the essence of the Independence debate and the conservatives under Ruth Davidson are seen as the champions of the Union
I do not see labour breaking through in Scotland and expect them to continue as the third party
Indeed if I still lived in Scotland I could vote for the SNP but never for Corbyns labour which of course is headed by two Englishmen dare I say
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Intelligence is not going to be shared with Ministers if they think their sources will be compromised. That puts all of us, potentially, at risk. How can we be certain that the security services would be supported in their pursuit of, say, jihadis plotting against Britain when some in the leadership are friendly with jihadists or their ideological masters?
OTOH the guest list for No 10 has to come from somewhere.
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
No. Cameron put a law through Parliament for a Benefit cap of £23,000.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
Not the same thing is it? Aren't they essentially saying a new law didn't explicitly override an existing one deemed of higher importance, not that parliament could not, if it so wanted, change that law of higher importance so it was no longer?
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Intelligence is not going to be shared with Ministers if they think their sources will be compromised. That puts all of us, potentially, at risk. How can we be certain that the security services would be supported in their pursuit of, say, jihadis plotting against Britain when some in the leadership are friendly with jihadists or their ideological masters?
End product reports are already sanitised to obscure sources and tradecraft. In my experience, the intelligence services are professional to the core. They will serve the government of the day - of whatever stripe - to the full extent of their charter. Our challenges will more likely be around executing against those EPRs - intelligence provision without subsequent action is little more than expensive gossip.
I suppose while we're conjuring up scary scenarios, we could do as Henry Stimson did in the US .
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
What was the UK between 1707 and 1801?
It would not have the same identity as now is the key point. Yes it would survive in some fashion, but it would not be the same.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
No. Cameron put a law through Parliament for a Benefit cap of £23,000.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
It can't ultimately as Parliament is sovereign and we have already moved to replace the HRA with a British Bill of Rights although Brexit has delayed it.
Repeal and replace the Human Rights Act and it becomes a non issue and removes any means for the judiciary to try and overrule statute
I think in practice it's extremely unlikely even a Corbyn Govt would get rid of Human rights and discrimination legislation.
It's technically possible but in practice it just wouldn't happen - certainly not in the short to medium term.
I view Corbyn - and those around him - as the quintessential wolves in sheep's clothing.
We are all framed by the environment in which we grew up and I grew up bang in the middle of a pit village on strike. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the miner's strike, some of the behaviour of the hard left was appalling. I remember that they were right nasty bastards (and still are). The strike was soured by threats and intimidation and unwillingness to compromise. You were destined to get fucked up badly if you scabbed.
That mentality may play well in some protest movements (although it royally screwed the poor ordinary miner), but it's no good for governing. The likes of McCluskey, Andrew Murray, Andrew Fisher, McDonnell etc are the same ilk as those who infiltrated and fought the miner's strike. They will never, ever compromise. Corbyn is their conduit to power. I genuinely worry about what they'd do if they got their hands on the controls of this country.
I worry because I think they are more motivated by hurting the wealthy than they are helping the poor. The entryists during the strike were less concerned for the plight of the miners than they were for getting Thatcher's head on a stick.
The era may have changed but the mentality hasn't.
There is plenty wrong with capitalism and Corbyn has done well to motivate a movement and to point out the injustices. But I'll never believe he is the answer. And I don't think many voters, outside of the 500k hardcore Momentumites, do either.
If a Hilary Benn or Yvette Cooper was leading Labour right now I reckon they'd be 10% ahead in the polls. For all Corbyn's mythical powers, he's a millstone rather than a rock.
I view them as wolves in wolves clothing.
Aren't wolves unsuccessful 9 hunts out of 10? So there's nothig to worry about at the next GE.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
No. Cameron put a law through Parliament for a Benefit cap of £23,000.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
It can't ultimately as Parliament is sovereign and we have already moved to replace the HRA with a British Bill of Rights although Brexit has delayed it.
Repeal and replace the Human Rights Act and it becomes a non issue and removes any means for the judiciary to try and overrule statute
I think in practice it's extremely unlikely even a Corbyn Govt would get rid of Human rights and discrimination legislation.
It's technically possible but in practice it just wouldn't happen - certainly not in the short to medium term.
He would not get rid of it completely, just replace it by the 'Socialist Equality and Liberation and Anti Oppression Act' or similar
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Intelligence is not going to be shared with Ministers if they think their sources will be compromised. That puts all of us, potentially, at risk. How can we be certain that the security services would be supported in their pursuit of, say, jihadis plotting against Britain when some in the leadership are friendly with jihadists or their ideological masters?
OTOH the guest list for No 10 has to come from somewhere.
Russia Today, Press TV and STW. And all those Hamas people will need their invitations too .....
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
You are a decent labour supporter but doesn't all this worry you
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud protections in treaties, and then say “can’t”. If we did we might risk an even bigger democratic blowback later. Arguably, it was just such a response on immigration that led to the vote to Leave the EU in the first place.
A big reason for me is that politicians - particularly Conservative ones - are out of touch (and I mean serious give-a-shit and want-to-do-something-about-it touch, not the cliche of faux listening and soundbites) with the concerns of everyday people and have both lost the ability to think from first principles, and have the courage to follow through on that thinking.
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
The one sure way to prevent a Corbyn (or Corbynite) government is to destroy him in an election. That requires a Conservative party that looks and acts like a government that governs for the country, has a solid and saleable view forward for the good of the country and does not appear to be in the middle of internal warfare.
Yep, we're screwed.
The solution is to get a good compromise Chequers Deal signed and sealed, and move on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
I understand such action would come under Human Rights acts
They would probably just include a certificate from themselves saying that it doesn't violate Human Rights. If parliament approves, that's it. The Human Rights Act can't bind parliament.
I don't think that's right actually.
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2.
Right now the two child limit for tax credits is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Until Corbyn pushes a law through Parliament to nationalise without full compensation if needed
No. Cameron put a law through Parliament for a Benefit cap of £23,000.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
It can't ultimately as Parliament is sovereign and we have already moved to replace the HRA with a British Bill of Rights although Brexit has delayed it.
Repeal and replace the Human Rights Act and it becomes a non issue and removes any means for the judiciary to try and overrule statute
I think in practice it's extremely unlikely even a Corbyn Govt would get rid of Human rights and discrimination legislation.
It's technically possible but in practice it just wouldn't happen - certainly not in the short to medium term.
On the contrary, he has pledged to keep human rights law.
Corbyn Brexit is likely to appeal more to WWC voters than Hannanite fantasy trade deal Brexit. Protectionism, banker bashing and anti-austerity is a driving force of Brexit, and still has petrol in its tank:
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
What was the UK between 1707 and 1801?
It would not have the same identity as now is the key point. Yes it would survive in some fashion, but it would not be the same.
My point is that the United Kingdom was formed from the political union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Scottish independence would actually be terminal for it in any meaningful sense. Ireland was an add on later.
Although, you could argue the flag is a bit redundant without NI and the red cross within it would need to go, in which case our flag would revert to the 18thC version.
At this rate you lot will be begging for Jezza to be confined in Nicola's pocket.
I have no doubt she is more competent than Corbyn.
Nicola would eat him for breakfast
Corbyn made inroads into the SNP heartlands of Glasgow and the Central belt at the last general election though and if the SNP prop up Labour we know what happened to the LDs when they did that with the Tories
Corbyn and labour are going backwards in Scotland
Corbyn got 7 times the Scottish MPs Ed Miliband did and he only really made inroads in Glasgow and the Central belt over the campaign
I don't know how many times it needs to be said (quite a few it appears) but SLab's 2017 'recovery' consisted of fewer than 10k extra votes over the disaster of 2015, and more than half of these votes were in the constituency of Ian Murray who despises Corbyn. I realise quite a few constituencies are marginal but as things stand this looks to be more in favour of the SNP than SLab.
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
What was the UK between 1707 and 1801?
It would not have the same identity as now is the key point. Yes it would survive in some fashion, but it would not be the same.
My point is that the United Kingdom was formed from the political union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Scottish independence would actually be terminal for it in any meaningful sense. Ireland was an add on later.
Although, you could argue the flag is a bit redundant without NI and the red cross within it would need to go, in which case our flag would revert to the 18thC version.
The United Kingdom was formed by the political union of Great Britain and Ireland. The union of England and Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain.
It would be a disaster. No experience of running anything, only aging incompetant trots like Abbott to put in office. No US intelligence on any threats to the UK. And so on.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
Freedom is the right to choose and the right to choose is the right to make mistakes. I would be utterly appalled if the UK voted to elect Corbyn PM but that is our right and if we are dependent on others to protect us from the consequences we do not deserve to have choices at all. We need to learn as a nation to make adult decisions and accept responsibility for the consequences.
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
I think there's a worst case scenario where they take an axe to Security Service. The risk to GCHQ would probably manifest itself indirectly - the Septics might not care to share SIGINT with an unfriendly power. It's hard to see how they permanently corrupt either service - people will simply leave, though that would, of course, destroy capability and organisational memory.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Intelligence is not going to be shared with Ministers if they think their sources will be compromised. That puts all of us, potentially, at risk. How can we be certain that the security services would be supported in their pursuit of, say, jihadis plotting against Britain when some in the leadership are friendly with jihadists or their ideological masters?
End product reports are already sanitised to obscure sources and tradecraft. In my experience, the intelligence services are professional to the core. They will serve the government of the day - of whatever stripe - to the full extent of their charter. Our challenges will more likely be around executing against those EPRs - intelligence provision without subsequent action is little more than expensive gossip.
I suppose while we're conjuring up scary scenarios, we could do as Henry Stimson did in the US .
True - in general terms. When some of the people in government may not themselves pass security clearance, in part because of links to governments which have been responsible for attacks against British citizens, then this complicates matters. And it affects morale.
They may grow up when confronted with the realities of power - Diane Abbott may surprise us all and take her duties as HS very seriously. Or they may still believe what they have repeatedly said over the years and enact it. That is very much Corbyn’s MO, as we have seen. I think it naive and possibly dangerous to assume: “Oh they don’t really mean it.”
As Britain’s government pursues the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable, a succession of Leavers queue up to warn gravely about the alternative. One does not need to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn to goggle at this sight.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
You are a decent labour supporter but doesn't all this worry you
Sure. What do you want me to do about it? Corbyn an old man. He won't be the leader for decades. Every week that passes has another part of the Corbyn support network thrown under the bus - as soon as they started attacking Lansman it was clear to me this wouldn't last. Its a cult. Once he goes the cultists will all fuck off back under whatever rock they crawled out of. And this 118 year old movement will continue.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
You are a decent labour supporter but doesn't all this worry you
Sure. What do you want me to do about it? Corbyn an old man. He won't be the leader for decades. Every week that passes has another part of the Corbyn support network thrown under the bus - as soon as they started attacking Lansman it was clear to me this wouldn't last. Its a cult. Once he goes the cultists will all fuck off back under whatever rock they crawled out of. And this 118 year old movement will continue.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud protections in treaties, and then say “can’t”. If we did we might risk an even bigger democratic blowback later. Arguably, it was just such a response on immigration that led to the vote to Leave the EU in the first place.
A big reason for me is that politicians - particularly Conservative ones - are out of touch (and I mean serious give-a-shit and want-to-do-something-about-it touch, not the cliche of faux listening and soundbites) with the concerns of everyday people and have both lost the ability to think from first principles, and have the courage to follow through on that thinking.
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Agreed. But we’re going to get Brexit. And if we end up getting a crash out Brexit followed by Corbyn I really worry about what this will mean. So I would rather have some protections than none.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
Stop giving Labour a free pass.
This is not a Tory-Boris-Bannon-whoeverthefuckelseyouwanttosmear issue. This is the Labour Party, today.
As Britain’s government pursues the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable, a succession of Leavers queue up to warn gravely about the alternative. One does not need to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn to goggle at this sight.
Personally I think Brexit has made a Corbyn government more likely and the way that Brexit is being, as you say, cack-handedly handled, makes the likelihood of a Corbyn government being more harmful than it might be, on top of the Brexit-induced harm.
As Britain’s government pursues the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable, a succession of Leavers queue up to warn gravely about the alternative. One does not need to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn to goggle at this sight.
Personally I think Brexit has made a Corbyn government more likely and the way that Brexit is being, as you say, cack-handedly handled, makes the likelihood of a Corbyn government being more harmful than it might be, on top of the Brexit-induced harm.
Conservatives who care about the national interest should ponder just how uncomfortable a second referendum would make Corbyn.
As Britain’s government pursues the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable, a succession of Leavers queue up to warn gravely about the alternative. One does not need to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn to goggle at this sight.
If you want damaging policies and cackhandedness then Jeremy Corbyn will have plenty to offer. One does not need to be a fan of Brexit to realise that.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
Stop giving Labour a free pass.
This is not a Tory-Boris-Bannon-whoeverthefuckelseyouwanttosmear issue. This is the Labour Party, today.
Really? since when have Corbynites claimed that Jews desire multiculturism as a way to de Christianise Europe? That is an alt.right meme.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
Freedom is the right to choose and the right to choose is the right to make mistakes. I would be utterly appalled if the UK voted to elect Corbyn PM but that is our right and if we are dependent on others to protect us from the consequences we do not deserve to have choices at all. We need to learn as a nation to make adult decisions and accept responsibility for the consequences.
Many on the Left were just as appalled to see Thatcher become PM in 1979.
As Britain’s government pursues the most damaging policy since the Second World War in the most cackhanded way imaginable, a succession of Leavers queue up to warn gravely about the alternative. One does not need to be a fan of Jeremy Corbyn to goggle at this sight.
Personally I think Brexit has made a Corbyn government more likely and the way that Brexit is being, as you say, cack-handedly handled, makes the likelihood of a Corbyn government being more harmful than it might be, on top of the Brexit-induced harm.
Unfortunately so. Not to mention, to Mr Meeks, the alternative to the 'most damaging policy' that you refer to is not Corbyn, since at present he is also for Brexit. He would be something on top of Brexit, not an alternative. Would he make it appreciably worse? Reasonable people will disagree, but until such time as Labour shift it isn't an alternative to the core policy.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
That’s utter bollocks, and you know it. The Conservatives have always neglected institutional control in achieving change. They are far more naive about the nature of power than the far left.
Under the Tories we have:
1) a state broadcaster that appoints ex-Labour MPs to executive posts
2) an utter failure to stop the carousel of left-leaning quangocrats that infest public institutions (see Sir Bob Kerslake)
3) no voter ID
4) state funding for trade unions.
The Tories are a bunch of lambs on this stuff. If Corbyn gets in, they will be slaughtered.
Most of Cyclefree's OP will also apply to the new Conservative leader, whomsoever that might be; some even to the current leader or any new prime minister. And one thing that Remainers and Leavers can agree on is Brexit changes everything.
Yes - but a new Tory PM would I think still seek to govern within the rules. I am not at all sure a Corbyn government will.
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There will certainly be an attack on the free press as Williamson keeps promising us.
Agreed. I don't think we can assume that they will respect existing conventions. It was Blair who reduced PMQ’s to one session. I can easily see Corbyn not doing it at all.
Frankly, if all a Corbyn government was about was nationalising the railways and water, I could live with that. But I think they could not be trusted with national security and there is a risk that they may seek to change the rules of the game so as to entrench their changes. How committed are Marxists with a penchant for admiring men of violence to democracy?
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
Freedom is the right to choose and the right to choose is the right to make mistakes. I would be utterly appalled if the UK voted to elect Corbyn PM but that is our right and if we are dependent on others to protect us from the consequences we do not deserve to have choices at all. We need to learn as a nation to make adult decisions and accept responsibility for the consequences.
On that basis would you take us out of the ECHR on the basis that it protects us in part from the consequences of our electoral choices? And if not, why not?
Good post, with last two paragraphs being the most important.
All bets are off indeed, as far as how Corbyn's team will bend our unwritten constitution.
What chance for example, that he will simply abandon PMQs?
Or close down the House of Lords?
There
Frankly, if all a Corbyn
I think a Corbyn led administration would actively undermine the efforts of our security services to keep us safe. It would be a more prevalent version of the “help” he offered Remain during the EU campaign.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
Not just British citizens. There is an interesting article in today’s Times about a number of governments viewing Britain as an “enemy” from an intelligence perspective were Corbyn to be PM.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
If it is true, it’s the wrong way round. Corbyn’s ideas need to be intellectually and democratically defeated in open political combat.
It isn’t sufficient to shroud protections in treaties, and then say “can’t”. If we did we might risk an even bigger democratic blowback later. Arguably, it was just such a response on immigration that led to the vote to Leave the EU in the first place.
A big reason for me is that politicians - particularly Conservative ones - are out of touch (and I mean serious give-a-shit and want-to-do-something-about-it touch, not the cliche of faux listening and soundbites) with the concerns of everyday people and have both lost the ability to think from first principles, and have the courage to follow through on that thinking.
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Agreed. But we’re going to get Brexit. And if we end up getting a crash out Brexit followed by Corbyn I really worry about what this will mean. So I would rather have some protections than none.
So you should be happy(ish) with Chequers then?
It will commit the UK to similar standards in a number of areas, whilst giving more freedom in services, more control over immigration and an end to political union.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
No, I do not want the end of a free press, but banning foreign ownership of newspapers and broadcasting would be fine by me.
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
What was the UK between 1707 and 1801?
It would not have the same identity as now is the key point. Yes it would survive in some fashion, but it would not be the same.
My point is that the United Kingdom was formed from the political union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Scottish independence would actually be terminal for it in any meaningful sense. Ireland was an add on later.
Although, you could argue the flag is a bit redundant without NI and the red cross within it would need to go, in which case our flag would revert to the 18thC version.
The United Kingdom was formed by the political union of Great Britain and Ireland. The union of England and Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
No, I do not want the end of a free press, but banning foreign ownership of newspapers and broadcasting would be fine by me.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
That sounds like old fashioned right wing anti-semitism in its attacks on multiculturism and non christian religion. Bannon rather than Corbyn methinks.
I really expect better of you than that diversionary tactic. You need to call it out
A slight contrast to Northern Ireland without which the UK wouldn't be the UK.
No contrast. The size doesn't matter. The principle is identical. It is possible to co-exist as neighbours. As we will be neighbours with Ireland and the EU. Neighbours not fellow countrymen.
Without the Northwest Angle, Minnesota would still be Minnesota. Without Northern Ireland, the UK would not be the UK. It's existential, not just some anomaly.
What was the UK between 1707 and 1801?
It would not have the same identity as now is the key point. Yes it would survive in some fashion, but it would not be the same.
My point is that the United Kingdom was formed from the political union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Scottish independence would actually be terminal for it in any meaningful sense. Ireland was an add on later.
Although, you could argue the flag is a bit redundant without NI and the red cross within it would need to go, in which case our flag would revert to the 18thC version.
The United Kingdom was formed by the political union of Great Britain and Ireland. The union of England and Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Indeed, but my point still stands.
Only if you retrospectively claim that the state of Great Britain was actually the UK all along.
I have no confidence that an election held 5 years after a Corbyn majority government would be free and fair.
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
In other words a reversal of Tory control of institutions?
Whats not to like?
You would be happy with 'end of the free press'?! I don't think Corbyn could do away with it in a term if he were to try, but it is in the list you just thought was great.
No, I do not want the end of a free press, but banning foreign ownership of newspapers and broadcasting would be fine by me.
I thought you were in favour of free movement of services.
Carry on reading down the thread. "did you know that emily maitlis is also from the same tribe as her? ardent zionists that are desperate for a multi-ethnic and non-christian europe. makes you think".
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
You are a decent labour supporter but doesn't all this worry you
Sure. What do you want me to do about it? Corbyn an old man. He won't be the leader for decades. Every week that passes has another part of the Corbyn support network thrown under the bus - as soon as they started attacking Lansman it was clear to me this wouldn't last. Its a cult. Once he goes the cultists will all fuck off back under whatever rock they crawled out of. And this 118 year old movement will continue.
I do feel your pain and you must be one of tens of thousands of decent labour supporters at your wits end
Comments
As I have said labour are descending into the abyss sadly
Something as innocuous as the Benefit Cap was challenged in the Courts and the Supreme Court only upheld it by 3-2 - ie two Supreme Court Judges ruled the Benefit Cap illegal.
The above suggests to me that nationalising without proper compensation might well not survive the Supreme Court.
Also note that right now the two child limit for tax credits (new claims only) is in the courts - survived High Court but still to go to appeal.
(Okay, that's silly. But it's interesting that Corbynites attack the BBC, yet their leader's links with Iranian TV are apparently unremarkable)
Okay, so I'm being silly again. But if you look at countries where freedoms have declined in the last couple of decades, then there is a common playbook: own the military, own the civil service, own the judiciary. If any of these give trouble, replace the troublemakers with your own loyalists.
This could only happen with a Blair-style majority for Corbyn - a S&D agreement or coalition wouldn't do it. But if you look at other dictators, they use a little power to cement the process. And Corbyn certainly likes dictators - at least certain ones.
To be frank, it's not Corbyn I'm worried about - it's the people around him.
(And that’s assuming the government has got the best legal advice it can - from its A-G - the ineffable Chakrabati. And, yes I know she’s meant to be a whizz kid on human rights but that’s mainly in her own head. Anyone relying on her advice needs their head examining.)
Personally, I would be quite content to see the SNP hold the balance of power at Westminster.
It would very probably lead to British citizens getting killed who otherwise wouldn’t have.
All of that is obvious, except to McDonnell and the Corbynistas, and is why I said earlier that I thought the remaining sane Labour MPs won't want to be involved in a Corbyn government; they'll need to remain untainted so that when it's all over, they can start the long, arduous task of rebuilding the party.
Yep, we’d be doomed.
Two Supreme Court Judges ruled it was unlawful.
Doesn't matter what goes through Parliament - Supreme Court can put a line through it at their discretion on basis of discrimination / human rights etc.
I know you will disagree with me but a no-deal Brexit followed by Corbyn will be utterly disastrous for Britain. Ironically the EU and its laws may be the best protection we have against some of the consequences of a Corbyn government.
However, in practice, I'm more sanguine. A Corbyn government would soon learn the truth of the quip that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
Yep, we're screwed.
Repeal and replace the Human Rights Act and it becomes a non issue and removes any means for the judiciary to try and overrule statute
America and Minnesota have the Northwest Angle.
The UK has Northern Ireland.
What the USA would be without one of its parts or what we would be without one is moot. We have those parts. We are not losing a part of us, the EU is losing the UK including Northern Ireland just as Canada doesn't have the Angle. But it will still be the EU, we will still be neighbours and NI residents will keep Irish citizenship just like the Angle has.
And life will go on.
I’m happy to do so. And so are more Brexiteers than you think.
The EU needs to come to the party too. On defence, security and fiscal stability across Europe it too is buggered if Corbyn takes power.
I do not see labour breaking through in Scotland and expect them to continue as the third party
Indeed if I still lived in Scotland I could vote for the SNP but never for Corbyns labour which of course is headed by two Englishmen dare I say
I suppose while we're conjuring up scary scenarios, we could do as Henry Stimson did in the US
It's technically possible but in practice it just wouldn't happen - certainly not in the short to medium term.
No idea if these posters are Labour or not. But they are clearly enboldened to post screaming antisemitic hate...
It isn’t sufficient to shroud protections in treaties, and then say “can’t”. If we did we might risk an even bigger democratic blowback later. Arguably, it was just such a response on immigration that led to the vote to Leave the EU in the first place.
A big reason for me is that politicians - particularly Conservative ones - are out of touch (and I mean serious give-a-shit and want-to-do-something-about-it touch, not the cliche of faux listening and soundbites) with the concerns of everyday people and have both lost the ability to think from first principles, and have the courage to follow through on that thinking.
So they panic, follow, don’t lead, and then panic and follow some more.
Corbyn Brexit is likely to appeal more to WWC voters than Hannanite fantasy trade deal Brexit. Protectionism, banker bashing and anti-austerity is a driving force of Brexit, and still has petrol in its tank:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-labour-eu-social-democracy
Although, you could argue the flag is a bit redundant without NI and the red cross within it would need to go, in which case our flag would revert to the 18thC version.
They may grow up when confronted with the realities of power - Diane Abbott may surprise us all and take her duties as HS very seriously. Or they may still believe what they have repeatedly said over the years and enact it. That is very much Corbyn’s MO, as we have seen. I think it naive and possibly dangerous to assume: “Oh they don’t really mean it.”
We can expect:
1) Leveson 2, and the end of the free press
2) Immense pressure on the BBC to be a good docile state broadcaster
3) the stuffing of quangos with Corbynites
4) the watering down of rules designed to protect the integrity of the franchise
5) prohibitions on large donations to political parties with a carve-out for trade unions
This is not a Tory-Boris-Bannon-whoeverthefuckelseyouwanttosmear issue. This is the Labour Party, today.
Whats not to like?
Under the Tories we have:
1) a state broadcaster that appoints ex-Labour MPs to executive posts
2) an utter failure to stop the carousel of left-leaning quangocrats that infest public institutions (see Sir Bob Kerslake)
3) no voter ID
4) state funding for trade unions.
The Tories are a bunch of lambs on this stuff. If Corbyn gets in, they will be slaughtered.
It will commit the UK to similar standards in a number of areas, whilst giving more freedom in services, more control over immigration and an end to political union.