TIG taking net votes from Labour, Tories and LDs more or less equally. Makes them into power brokers if so, despite their relatively low total vote share. Party X can't say, we can ignore them, they are damaging Party Y instead.
tbh I think Labour is doing quite well there to hold its losses to 3% and a wash overall in terms of the Con-Lab balance. I wouldn't say the last few weeks have been entirely optimal for us in terms of media coverage .
TIG taking net votes from Labour, Tories and LDs more or less equally. Makes them into power brokers if so, despite their relatively low total vote share. Party X can't say, we can ignore them, they are damaging Party Y instead.
tbh I think Labour is doing quite well there to hold its losses to 3% and a wash overall in terms of the Con-Lab balance. I wouldn't say the last few weeks have been entirely optimal for us in terms of media coverage .
That's what happens when you let the lunatics take over the asylum
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Not really since the law at present is that a politician can make the call. So long as they follow the correct procedure the rule of law has been upheld perfectly. I don't see the value in pretending the current rules are not a manifestation of the rule of law.
However, I agree that many people, myself included, don't like that a politician has that power, even if they think the recent decisions were correct. You are right that means the politics definitely factors into the decisions.
Unfortunately I am far from confident that even those politicians currently criticising the current law would change it if they get the chance. It has remained in place for decades for a reason, and they would probably find they dont want to remove it as an option even if they said they'd make it more difficult.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that the current regime is technically illegal. Only that it - in that it involves politicians making what should be judicial decisions - falls short of the principle of the rule of law.
How many Brexit parties and movements do we need? Why are leavers seemingly always unable to agree even amongst themselves?
The fact that they couldn't even agree on one campaign before the referendum was a pretty clear indication that they were never going to agree on anything afterwards.
It did of course allow them to brush off every criticism with the "we never said that the other campaign did" defense.
Why should they agree?
The EU represented the status quo, the campaigns different types of change. If instead of an election we had ballot saying "do you want to Remain with a Conservative government or Leave having a Conservative government" do you think all opposition parties should agree on what not having a Conservative government means anymore?
So long as we leave properly and are not bound forever by what this government agrees it frankly doesn't matter what type of Brexit we have very much. If we don't like it, we change the government and get a new type.
Peter Kellner pointed out a couple of months back that referendums often follow a similar pattern in that there is initially support for "change" . When it then comes down to specifying what that "change" should be the majority falls apart.
The Brexit referendum is following that pattern quite closely. We now have some leavers saying they would prefer to remain that have May's Deal and some leavers saying they would rather remain than leave with no deal. 52% was a precarious majority to begin with so it awas always unlikely that a majority were ever going to support any particular "brand" of Brexit.
Quite so. And the remainers have played the long game very well while too many leavers acted as though their version of leave was inevitable and will now see no version of it, quite likely.
The remainers have played the long game? How exactly did they do that?
By most of them not openly seeking to remain from day 1 so they did not appear to be trying to overturn the result against public will. Waiting for the leave coalition to dismantle itself, and waiting for opinion to turn before just happening to return to what was their intention all along (this can seen in the reasoning of people like Grieve- which apply to any Brexit so his opposition is clearly not based on how things developed).
It's worked. Id rather remain than see this government try for the next phase of all this.
'We have always been clear on this' - 'let me make this clear' - Starmer talking obfuscation on Sophy Ridge on a second referendum and is so much part of the disaster that is unfolding in front of our eyes
Starmer trying to hide he really, really wants to remain, but doing it very poorly
He doesn't need to hide it as much now. Labour are almost to the point of backing remain fully, but tactically the leadership holds out. But we can all see that they are now for remain.
After both Starmer and now McDonnell on Marr just now backing away from a referendum and McDonnell promoting a soft brexit it is far from certain the labour leadership are for remain. They are not even going to put it forward on tuesday either apparently
They can pretend to back a softer Brexit because it's not on offer, its tactical. The key for them is have they done enough to persuade remain voters stay with them. They probably have.
A softer Brexit sounds great but that is because it has not been defined in detail, there is no 585 page document setting out exactly what it would mean. And if there were such a document it would suddenly look much less attractive, everyone would find fault with the detail and it would be no more likely to pass the Commons than Mays deal.
As you say, it is a sensible tactical gambit for Labour at this stage, but a softer Brexit will not emerged, it will soon become clear that a second referendum is the only practical way forward.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know. Confiscate their passports? Give them a stiff talking to and return them home? That is not really the point.
The worrying part is that the security services did not seem to have noticed them leave. Why is MI5 not monitoring ticket sales, let alone the airport?
They are crap is the simple answer, a total waste of money on a bunch of no-marks who would struggle to catch the cold.
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
The crapper the Brexit the better it is for Scotland. Will give the fearties the backbone to stand up and vote to look after themselves rather than be ruled by colonists.
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
Not all of us Malc and according to 5 live you have snow this am. Got your sledge out !!!!
G, I posted poorly, I was referring to MP's not Tories in general. Miserable here but just rain, yesterday was hail and rain, BAU for March mind you. Hope all well with you and family.
"The family of" sounds a bit vague. Does it mean immediate family or are we talking about second cousins twice removed?
We already know that Corbyn is surrounded by posh millionaires. Is this news or just gossip?
The real mystery is who on earth would think £50 million a fair price for that daub. The use of colour is interesting, but that's about as far as its merits extend.
I'm no art historian, unlike their Royal Highnesses or KGB spies, but it does not look to me much like a typical Picasso, so perhaps that is why it is important. You'd have thought there would be some sort of national acquisition fund rather than the government having to pass the hat round on each occasion.
I am not sure, but I believe it's from his 'blue' period, and typical of that period.
It could still have been painted by a child or a chimpanzee.
Yes, they're in effect predominantly a centre party split. I was talking to a prominent LibDem on Friday who is close to their London Mayoral campaign - she was politely irritated by the whole TIG thing.
TIG is the reason that the Labour party is on the verge of being formally investigated for institutional anti-Semitism and is why Labour was panicked into backing a second referendum. What's more, it has reinvigorated the PLP and made the majority of Labour MPs a whole lot harder to deselect. That, in turn, makes it far more unlikely the far left will ever be able to inflict any serious damage on the UK (read England and Wales). If these are its only achievements they will have been immensely worthwhile.
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
it's so helpful of those nice people at the EU to show the way in dealing with these "errant" parts of a Union isn't it?
So, is leaving a Union workable without breaking your economy or not?
TBH Malc - I think it is - and if you and your fellow Scots want to leave then Gods speed.
Just pointing out some people are applying double standards to the debate.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Not really since the law at present is that a politician can make the call. So long as they follow the correct procedure the rule of law has been upheld perfectly. I don't see the value in pretending the current rules are not a manifestation of the rule of law.
However, I agree that many people, myself included, don't like that a politician has that power, even if they think the recent decisions were correct. You are right that means the politics definitely factors into the decisions.
Unfortunately I am far from confident that even those politicians currently criticising the current law would change it if they get the chance. It has remained in place for decades for a reason, and they would probably find they dont want to remove it as an option even if they said they'd make it more difficult.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that the current regime is technically illegal. Only that it - in that it involves politicians making what should be judicial decisions - falls short of the principle of the rule of law.
I know but I disagree. I think it's a bad way of doing things but the principle itself does not offend me even though I disagree with it.
'We have always been clear on this' - 'let me make this clear' - Starmer talking obfuscation on Sophy Ridge on a second referendum and is so much part of the disaster that is unfolding in front of our eyes
Starmer trying to hide he really, really wants to remain, but doing it very poorly
He doesn't need to hide it as much now. Labour are almost to the point of backing remain fully, but tactically the leadership holds out. But we can all see that they are now for remain.
After both Starmer and now McDonnell on Marr just now backing away from a referendum and McDonnell promoting a soft brexit it is far from certain the labour leadership are for remain. They are not even going to put it forward on tuesday either apparently
They can pretend to back a softer Brexit because it's not on offer, its tactical. The key for them is have they done enough to persuade remain voters stay with them. They probably have.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
+1.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I’d be happy for Labour to ditch the second EU vote and go for a soft Brexit .
The latter has much more chance of happening. I can’t see the votes in the Commons for a second vote .
What kind of soft Brexit?
The "Common Market 2.0" kind. We're leaving the EU apparently because we don't want the political union stuff. Fine. So why are we leaving the things that we want - free trade?
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know. Confiscate their passports? Give them a stiff talking to and return them home? That is not really the point.
The worrying part is that the security services did not seem to have noticed them leave. Why is MI5 not monitoring ticket sales, let alone the airport?
They are crap is the simple answer, a total waste of money on a bunch of no-marks who would struggle to catch the cold.
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
That is because they ignore them and media hardly ever show it on TV. Blackford is actually pretty good but they are determined to give SNP as little publicity as possible. They are worried about next referendum. PS: Robertson born London.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
I'd suggest that both on Remain & Leave sides in Scotland, Brexit isn't the quite the raging fire that it appears to be in Brexistan. Aside from the SCon's position on the EU being even less clear than, say, Corbyn's, polling suggests that they've sooked up all the voters that are consumed by Brexit as an issue.
I think Malcolm would accept that he's right-of-centre politically and he voted for Brexit. Ask him the what the likelihood is of his vote going Tory next (or any) time out.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspect of this whole affair is that the security services seemed not to notice or wonder about three unaccompanied minors flying on one-way tickets on a known route to ISIS. Burgess and Maclean could escape to Russia because the MI5 teams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know. Confiscate their passports? Give them a stiff talking to and return them home? That is not really the point.
The worrying part is that the security services did not seem to have noticed them leave. Why is MI5 not monitoring ticket sales, let alone the airport?
They are crap is the simple answer, a total waste of money on a bunch of no-marks who would struggle to catch the cold.
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
Ian Blackford would be dismayed that anyone could not know who he is !!!!
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
+1.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I’d be happy for Labour to ditch the second EU vote and go for a soft Brexit .
The latter has much more chance of happening. I can’t see the votes in the Commons for a second vote .
What kind of soft Brexit?
The "Common Market 2.0" kind. We're leaving the EU apparently because we don't want the political union stuff. Fine. So why are we leaving the things that we want - free trade?
You may have voted for Brexit for that reason, but that's not why we're leaving.
'We have always been clear on this' - 'let me make this clear' - Starmer talking obfuscation on Sophy Ridge on a second referendum and is so much part of the disaster that is unfolding in front of our eyes
Starmer trying to hide he really, really wants to remain, but doing it very poorly
He doesn't need to hide it as much now. Labour are almost to the point of backing remain fully, but tactically the leadership holds out. But we can all see that they are now for remain.
After both Starmer and now McDonnell on Marr just now backing away from a referendum and McDonnell promoting a soft brexit it is far from certain the labour leadership are for remain. They are not even going to put it forward on tuesday either apparently
They can pretend to back a softer Brexit because it's not on offer, its tactical. The key for them is have they done enough to persuade remain voters stay with them. They probably have.
That's not what the polls are saying.
That's fair. I dont buy that they wont largely return to labour if Brexit happens though. Why reward the tories?
Yes, they're in effect predominantly a centre party split. I was talking to a prominent LibDem on Friday who is close to their London Mayoral campaign - she was politely irritated by the whole TIG thing.
TIG is the reason that the Labour party is on the verge of being formally investigated for institutional anti-Semitism and is why Labour was panicked into backing a second referendum. What's more, it has reinvigorated the PLP and made the majority of Labour MPs a whole lot harder to deselect. That, in turn, makes it far more unlikely the far left will ever be able to inflict any serious damage on the UK (read England and Wales). If these are its only achievements they will have been immensely worthwhile.
Yes they have had a salutary effect on Labour, and it could be argued they also pushed May toward opening the door to an extension of A50.
But it's much less clear that they will be sustainable in the long term - they seem much more amateurish than the SDP breakaway and the policy positions on their website are no more than motherhood and apple pie cliches.
Yes, they're in effect predominantly a centre party split. I was talking to a prominent LibDem on Friday who is close to their London Mayoral campaign - she was politely irritated by the whole TIG thing.
TIG is the reason that the Labour party is on the verge of being formally investigated for institutional anti-Semitism and is why Labour was panicked into backing a second referendum. What's more, it has reinvigorated the PLP and made the majority of Labour MPs a whole lot harder to deselect. That, in turn, makes it far more unlikely the far left will ever be able to inflict any serious damage on the UK (read England and Wales). If these are its only achievements they will have been immensely worthwhile.
Yes they have had a salutary effect on Labour, and it could be argued they also pushed May toward opening the door to an extension of A50.
But it's much less clear that they will be sustainable in the long term - they seem much more amateurish that the SDP breakaway and the policy positions on their website are no more than motherhood and apple pie cliches.
Despite their comments I'm not convinced they would be devastated to not make it long term. They know how hard that would be. Even having the impact they've had is more than most mps can manage.
I’d be happy for Labour to ditch the second EU vote and go for a soft Brexit .
The latter has much more chance of happening. I can’t see the votes in the Commons for a second vote .
What kind of soft Brexit?
The "Common Market 2.0" kind. We're leaving the EU apparently because we don't want the political union stuff. Fine. So why are we leaving the things that we want - free trade?
You may have voted for Brexit for that reason, but that's not why we're leaving.
Yeah I know. People want to leave the EU so we can stop all these migrant darkies coming in from not the EU. Let them drown said the phone in caller
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
it's so helpful of those nice people at the EU to show the way in dealing with these "errant" parts of a Union isn't it?
So, is leaving a Union workable without breaking your economy or not?
TBH Malc - I think it is - and if you and your fellow Scots want to leave then Gods speed.
Just pointing out some people are applying double standards to the debate.
For sure, UK politics is rotten to the core , Scotland included. Have to say though , the EU signed up to what May asked for, hard to point to them as the bogey men. PS: My hope is that after independence , the politicians would be cleared out and we would get decent representatives elected, forlorn as that hope may be. At minimum at least we could chuck them out rather than current position where we get what England votes for every time.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know. Confiscate their passports? Give them a stiff talking to and return them home? That is not really the point.
The worrying part is that the security services did not seem to have noticed them leave. Why is MI5 not monitoring ticket sales, let alone the airport?
They are crap is the simple answer, a total waste of money on a bunch of no-marks who would struggle to catch the cold.
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
That is because they ignore them and media hardly ever show it on TV. Blackford is actually pretty good but they are determined to give SNP as little publicity as possible. They are worried about next referendum. PS: Robertson born London.
Ah but they'd surely ignored Robertson just as much but I still remembered him. So I fear either he's not as good or its lost in the Brexit haze or both.
After all on Brexit we all know the SNP position anyway.
'We have always been clear on this' - 'let me make this clear' - Starmer talking obfuscation on Sophy Ridge on a second referendum and is so much part of the disaster that is unfolding in front of our eyes
Starmer trying to hide he really, really wants to remain, but doing it very poorly
He doesn't need to hide it as much now. Labour are almost to the point of backing remain fully, but tactically the leadership holds out. But we can all see that they are now for remain.
After both Starmer and now McDonnell on Marr just now backing away from a referendum and McDonnell promoting a soft brexit it is far from certain the labour leadership are for remain. They are not even going to put it forward on tuesday either apparently
They can pretend to back a softer Brexit because it's not on offer, its tactical. The key for them is have they done enough to persuade remain voters stay with them. They probably have.
That's not what the polls are saying.
That's fair. I dont buy that they wont largely return to labour if Brexit happens though. Why reward the tories?
Because for a section of the electorate Remain is now the most important part of their political identity. A lot of people voted Labour in 2017 to stop the hard Tory Brexit May was proposing - or the No Deal she was advocating if the EU did not do as the UK demanded. Once we have left the EU, that reason to vote Labour goes. Then those who are strongly Remain - and it is a small, but significant, sub-section - will not want to reward Labour for the part it played in facilitating Brexit. I see it very much like the Iraq war. Blair crossed a line that led many life-long Labour voters to abandon the party.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
I'd suggest that both on Remain & leave sides in Scotland, Brexit isn't the quite the raging fire that it appears to be in Brexistan. Aside from the SCon's position on the EU being even less clear than, say, Corbyn's, polling suggests that they've sooked up all the voters that are consumed by Brexit as an issue.
I think Malcolm would accept that he's right-of-centre politically and he voted for Brexit. Ask him the what the likelihood is of his vote going Tory next (or any) time out.
The last election in Scotland was fought on the union and ignored brexit. The Tory vote in Scotland is pro business and much less keen on brexit than the English Tory party. Ruth Davidson has been quiet recently but is anti hard brexit. Several Tory mps in Scotland who are close to erg risk being deselected
Ah but they'd surely ignored Robertson just as much but I still remembered him. So I fear either he's not as good or its lost in the Brexit haze or both.
After all on Brexit we all know the SNP position anyway.
Here's a refresher
SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford has been accused of “an odious attempt to re-write history” by playing down claims that he led a vendetta against the late Charles Kennedy.
The accusation was made by former Labour MP Brian Wilson who said the last months of Mr Kennedy's life were disfigured by the “disgraceful” campaign pursued by the SNP.
Mr Wilson said Mr Blackford led a campaign that “unleashed a torrent of abuse” against the former Lib Dem leader.
Mr Kennedy lost his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat to Mr Blackford in the 2015 General Election after a bitter and deeply unpleasant campaign. Shortly afterwards the former MP died in Fort William following his long battle against alcoholism.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
+1.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
Our constitution has always allowed senior politicians to take legal decisions. For that matter, it allows local politicians to do so as well (eg planning and licensing). The important thing is that they are reviewable by the Courts.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
I'd suggest that both on Remain & Leave sides in Scotland, Brexit isn't the quite the raging fire that it appears to be in Brexistan. Aside from the SCon's position on the EU being even less clear than, say, Corbyn's, polling suggests that they've sooked up all the voters that are consumed by Brexit as an issue.
I think Malcolm would accept that he's right-of-centre politically and he voted for Brexit. Ask him the what the likelihood is of his vote going Tory next (or any) time out.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know. Confiscate their passports? Give them a stiff talking to and return them home? That is not really the point.
The worrying part is that the security services did not seem to have noticed them leave. Why is MI5 not monitoring ticket sales, let alone the airport?
They are crap is the simple answer, a total waste of money on a bunch of no-marks who would struggle to catch the cold.
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
Ian Blackford would be dismayed that anyone could not know who he is !!!!
He's always impressed me whenever i have heard him speak in Parliament.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
Yes, they're in effect predominantly a centre party split. I was talking to a prominent LibDem on Friday who is close to their London Mayoral campaign - she was politely irritated by the whole TIG thing.
TIG is the reason that the Labour party is on the verge of being formally investigated for institutional anti-Semitism and is why Labour was panicked into backing a second referendum. What's more, it has reinvigorated the PLP and made the majority of Labour MPs a whole lot harder to deselect. That, in turn, makes it far more unlikely the far left will ever be able to inflict any serious damage on the UK (read England and Wales). If these are its only achievements they will have been immensely worthwhile.
Yes they have had a salutary effect on Labour, and it could be argued they also pushed May toward opening the door to an extension of A50.
But it's much less clear that they will be sustainable in the long term - they seem much more amateurish than the SDP breakaway and the policy positions on their website are no more than motherhood and apple pie cliches.
I agree. I am not enthusiastic about their offering. My guess is that it will end up fracturing as I don't think you fit people like Anna Soubry, Luciana Berger and Mike Gapes in the same party. But I admire the stand they have all taken, which was brave and principled. People like Corbyn and McDonnell never put their livelihoods at risk in standing up for what they believed in. Not one of the 11 TIG members will be an MP after the next election.
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
Nope - Scotland can always vote to leave. remind us of the last vote?
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
But surely more could have been done to stop these three schoolgirls joining ISIS?
One curious aspams following Maclean only worked 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. It seems any lessons learned have been forgotten.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
I don't know. Confiscate their passports? Give them a stiff talking to and return them home? That is not really the point.
The worrying part is that the security services did not seem to have noticed them leave. Why is MI5 not monitoring ticket sales, let alone the airport?
They are crap is the simple answer, a total waste of money on a bunch of no-marks who would struggle to catch the cold.
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
Ian Blackford would be dismayed that anyone could not know who he is !!!!
He's always impressed me whenever i have heard him speak in Parliament.
"The family of" sounds a bit vague. Does it mean immediate family or are we talking about second cousins twice removed?
We already know that Corbyn is surrounded by posh millionaires. Is this news or just gossip?
The real mystery is who on earth would think £50 million a fair price for that daub. The use of colour is interesting, but that's about as far as its merits extend.
I'm no art historian, unlike their Royal Highnesses or KGB spies, but it does not look to me much like a typical Picasso, so perhaps that is why it is important. You'd have thought there would be some sort of national acquisition fund rather than the government having to pass the hat round on each occasion.
I am not sure, but I believe it's from his 'blue' period, and typical of that period.
He was twenty years old and it immediately preceded his blue period.
Hunt is saying what he knows the Tory membership wants to hear. Whether it is logical or not is besides the point. His only interest is what advances his chances of being the next Tory leader.
Ah but they'd surely ignored Robertson just as much but I still remembered him. So I fear either he's not as good or its lost in the Brexit haze or both.
After all on Brexit we all know the SNP position anyway.
Here's a refresher
SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford has been accused of “an odious attempt to re-write history” by playing down claims that he led a vendetta against the late Charles Kennedy.
The accusation was made by former Labour MP Brian Wilson who said the last months of Mr Kennedy's life were disfigured by the “disgraceful” campaign pursued by the SNP.
Mr Wilson said Mr Blackford led a campaign that “unleashed a torrent of abuse” against the former Lib Dem leader.
Mr Kennedy lost his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat to Mr Blackford in the 2015 General Election after a bitter and deeply unpleasant campaign. Shortly afterwards the former MP died in Fort William following his long battle against alcoholism.
Oh Dear , only a moron could use Wilson to try and prove a point, assume you sympathize with bitter twisted nasty ex Labour MP's like Wilson. Sore losers tend to be like that.
The SNP is run as such a tight ship. It wasn't too long ago I remember someone found carefully worded pre-prepared responses on their benches on the Commons that started off with "that simply isn't good enough".
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
+1.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
Our constitution has always allowed senior politicians to take legal decisions. For that matter, it allows local politicians to do so as well (eg planning and licensing). The important thing is that they are reviewable by the Courts.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
Thinking about the last election, the curious aspect was that Labour was able to win Leave seats like Peterborough despite Brexit (on small swings) and strong Remain seats like Canterbury (on huge swings).
I wonder whether there was a tendency for Leave voters to discount Brexit when voting because they already had what they wanted (or thought they did) whereas for Remain voters it felt more urgent to vote on Brexit lines (and for whatever reason Labour was perceived to be the best Remain option).
This means that if the next election is fought in an atmosphere of Brexit being lost, or in real peril, then one might expect Leave voters to be more motivated to vote on Brexit lines than Remain voters. This suggests that an election will be bad for whichever side temporarily has the upper hand. If MPs are aware of this then it makes any election exceptionally unlikely, but if one does happen it is likely to increase political instability rather than decrease it - and this is likely to be the case until a compromise can be reached that is acceptable to both sides. Is that possible within the next decade? I have my doubts.
The 2017 GE wasn't all about Brexit.
The reason why Labour gained Canterbury (which was only a marginal Remain constituency) was because of Labour's student fees promises.
It would be interesting to correlate the 2017 results by number of students in each constituency.
Sir John Curtice has done this analysis, in the Cowley/Kavanagh GE 2017 book.
...the Conservatives performed less well and Labour better in seats with more young adults - though once we take this into account, there is no indication...that constituencies with large numbers of students were particularly likely to swing towards the [Labour] party.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
I'd suggest that both on Remain & leave sides in Scotland, Brexit isn't the quite the raging fire that it appears to be in Brexistan. Aside from the SCon's position on the EU being even less clear than, say, Corbyn's, polling suggests that they've sooked up all the voters that are consumed by Brexit as an issue.
I think Malcolm would accept that he's right-of-centre politically and he voted for Brexit. Ask him the what the likelihood is of his vote going Tory next (or any) time out.
The last election in Scotland was fought on the union and ignored brexit. The Tory vote in Scotland is pro business and much less keen on brexit than the English Tory party. Ruth Davidson has been quiet recently but is anti hard brexit. Several Tory mps in Scotland who are close to erg risk being deselected
Think you are looking for "Invisible" and scared to come back. Bet she was hoping for parachute to Westminster before it all blew up in Scotland.
Well anything is possible, but he obviously would not want to risk not leaving, which a referendum would do even if leave would win handsomely. But in fact I think you are correct.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
FWIW my canvassing is turning up a LOT of people who say they won't vote next time because of the national mess. Most are Brexiteers who think the political class has sold them out (and this is in deepest prosperous Surrey) but some are just generally fed up. If one tries to turn their attention to the local issues that the election is supposed to be about, they shrug and say yes, but Brexit...
I hate to say “I told you so” but I have been banging on for quite some time about how Brexit identity is stronger than party identity.
Without question. And that is why Labour should be very worried about its 2017 Remain demographic. As ever, Scotland is the canary in the mine on this.
And the nightmare for the Scottish Tories there is if Brexit becomes the fault line rather than independence.
Didn’t 38% of people vote to leave the EU in Scotland? That’s more than traditionally vote Tory.
I'd suggest that both on Remain & leave sides in Scotland, Brexit isn't the quite the raging fire that it appears to be in Brexistan. Aside from the SCon's position on the EU being even less clear than, say, Corbyn's, polling suggests that they've sooked up all the voters that are consumed by Brexit as an issue.
I think Malcolm would accept that he's right-of-centre politically and he voted for Brexit. Ask him the what the likelihood is of his vote going Tory next (or any) time out.
The last election in Scotland was fought on the union and ignored brexit. The Tory vote in Scotland is pro business and much less keen on brexit than the English Tory party. Ruth Davidson has been quiet recently but is anti hard brexit. Several Tory mps in Scotland who are close to erg risk being deselected
Think you are looking for "Invisible" and scared to come back. Bet she was hoping for parachute to Westminster before it all blew up in Scotland.
Wouldn’t standing in 2017 when tories were expecting a landslide have been the time for her to get into Westminster? She’s fixated on the Scottish Parliament and being First Minister.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
+1.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
Our constitution has always allowed senior politicians to take legal decisions. For that matter, it allows local politicians to do so as well (eg planning and licensing). The important thing is that they are reviewable by the Courts.
That's why I don't have a problem with the principle. But given politics seems far more likely to play a role in these areas I think other methods are preferable.
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
Nope - Scotland can always vote to leave. remind us of the last vote?
If you are that forgetful what is the point. Do you remember the promises that were forgotten the next day perhaps.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
+1.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair a/blockquote>
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
Our constitution has always allowed senior politicians to take legal decisions. For that matter, it allows local politicians to do so as well (eg planning and licensing). The important thing is that they are reviewable by the Courts.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
On the face of it, I consider that Javid's decision was a reasonable one (though of course, subsequent litigation may show that not to have been the case).
IMHO, the Courts would be overwhelmed, if ministers could not take quasi-judicial decisions.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.
Every time another child dies The Saj applies fresh coat of scalp wax and smiles.
To have 3 dead children by the age of 19 is desperately sad in anyones book. Hard to protect people from their own pisspoor decisions though.
Doesn’t society have an obligation to protect minors from the consequences of making pisspoor decisions? Safeguarding, I believe the term to be?
No. It has a duty to raise concerns about such children if we are concerned they are about to make such a decision so appropriate help and support can be offered. But if it is refused, it can't when the last comes to the last be forced on them.
Ultimately, any fifteen year old can make bad choices, and many of them do. the West was on her side.
By arresting them, yes, if they had been spotted at the airport.
But then what?
Given your extremely liberal use of the term, malcolm, are there any marks ?
Nigel, they are hard to find in politics for sure. There are a few exceptions, I do like Ken Clarke and there are a handful of very good SNP MP's and MSP's, MEP's but the exception rather than the rule. Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond were superb as well but sadly no longer there.
I honestly cannot recall who leads the SNP ar Westminster now. Robertson always came across well.
That is because they ignore them and media hardly ever show it on TV. Blackford is actually pretty good but they are determined to give SNP as little publicity as possible. They are worried about next referendum. PS: Robertson born London.
Ah but they'd surely ignored Robertson just as much but I still remembered him. So I fear either he's not as good or its lost in the Brexit haze or both.
After all on Brexit we all know the SNP position anyway.
Still not good politics to treat them so badly when another referendum is in the offing, they nearly blew it last time and only last minute lies and false promises saved them. Will be tougher next time.
Labour's favourability rating (according to Yougov) is now no better than the Conservatives'. And, that's very unusual. Since 1945, Labour has usually been viewed more favourably than the Conservatives.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.
Why would the UK be done for?
Because it's in the process of disappointing the people who need to believe in it for it to survive.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair a/blockquote>
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
Our constitution has always allowed senior politicians to take legal decisions. For that matter, it allows local politicians to do so as well (eg planning and licensing). The important thing is that they are reviewable by the Courts.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
On the face of it, I consider that Javid's decision was a reasonable one (though of course, subsequent litigation may show that not to have been the case).
IMHO, the Courts would be overwhelmed, if ministers could not take quasi-judicial decisions.
Please can you fix that so that it doesn't appear I said Javid's decision was reasonable?
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
it's so helpful of those nice people at the EU to show the way in dealing with these "errant" parts of a Union isn't it?
So, is leaving a Union workable without breaking your economy or not?
TBH Malc - I think it is - and if you and your fellow Scots want to leave then Gods speed.
Just pointing out some people are applying double standards to the debate.
For sure, UK politics is rotten to the core , Scotland included. Have to say though , the EU signed up to what May asked for, hard to point to them as the bogey men. PS: My hope is that after independence , the politicians would be cleared out and we would get decent representatives elected, forlorn as that hope may be. At minimum at least we could chuck them out rather than current position where we get what England votes for every time.
Apart from all those years of Labour Government when England got what Scotland voted for.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.
Why would the UK be done for?
Because it's in the process of disappointing the people who need to believe in it for it to survive.
Those people are obviously all women 'cos they've got no balls
Think you are looking for "Invisible" and scared to come back. Bet she was hoping for parachute to Westminster before it all blew up in Scotland.
Oh, Malky, you assured us last time she wouldn't win her Holyrood seat.
How did that work out for you?
Scott I misjudged how many thick people there were in Edinburgh, Labour helping the Tories was a bit hard to believe as well. We will see how they do next time. Would you like a little wager on who goes up and who goes down SNP/Tories.
8% from a standing start is pretty impressive. Will it hold?
It is actually pretty poor compared with what the SDP was recording in similar hypothetical polls back in March/April 1981.The novelty appeal tends to wear off pretty quickly unless reinforced on a regular basis. Doubtless these figures arise from prompted questions in that Comres have included TIG as an option. Why no mention of Brexit Party though? Sounds somewhat inconsistent given that the latter do actually formally exist as a political party.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.
Why would the UK be done for?
Because right wing English nationalists control the Conservative party and Labour, which is also now an English party, is unelectable. For the Scots and the Northern Irish that has significant on-going implications. Either it leads to an entirely new constitutional arrangement or the UK comes to an end. Given the complete lack of political imagination that exists in Westminster, I expect it to be the latter.
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
it's so helpful of those nice people at the EU to show the way in dealing with these "errant" parts of a Union isn't it?
So, is leaving a Union workable without breaking your economy or not?
TBH Malc - I think it is - and if you and your fellow Scots want to leave then Gods speed.
Just pointing out some people are applying double standards to the debate.
For sure, UK politics is rotten to the core , Scotland included. Have to say though , the EU signed up to what May asked for, hard to point to them as the bogey men. PS: My hope is that after independence , the politicians would be cleared out and we would get decent representatives elected, forlorn as that hope may be. At minimum at least we could chuck them out rather than current position where we get what England votes for every time.
Apart from all those years of Labour Government when England got what Scotland voted for.
Tories are exceptionally thick and Davis is one of the front runners. David Davis tells Marr he can think of no example of a sovereign nation joining up for a union where it can only leave “if the other nation allows it do so.” Precisely, of course, the situation Scotland is in.
it's so helpful of those nice people at the EU to show the way in dealing with these "errant" parts of a Union isn't it?
So, is leaving a Union workable without breaking your economy or not?
TBH Malc - I think it is - and if you and your fellow Scots want to leave then Gods speed.
Just pointing out some people are applying double standards to the debate.
For sure, UK politics is rotten to the core , Scotland included. Have to say though , the EU signed up to what May asked for, hard to point to them as the bogey men. PS: My hope is that after independence , the politicians would be cleared out and we would get decent representatives elected, forlorn as that hope may be. At minimum at least we could chuck them out rather than current position where we get what England votes for every time.
Apart from all those years of Labour Government when England got what Scotland voted for.
I hate to go there, but why did Blair a/blockquote>
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
Our constitution has always allowed senior politicians to take legal decisions. For that matter, it allows local politicians to do so as well (eg planning and licensing). The important thing is that they are reviewable by the Courts.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
On the face of it, I consider that Javid's decision was a reasonable one (though of course, subsequent litigation may show that not to have been the case).
IMHO, the Courts would be overwhelmed, if ministers could not take quasi-judicial decisions.
And to respond to the substantive point, it's quite absurd to suggest that the courts would be incapable of dealing with the volume of requests from politicians to deprive British people of their citizenship.
The latest figures I've seen are 100 per annum just a couple of years ago. Shockingly high in one sense, but obviously not a volume that would overwhelm the courts. Particularly as the advocates of this arbitrary power of the part of politicians are always so eager to point out that there is a right of appeal anyhow - albeit perhaps a right of appeal that may take years, and involve family members dying.
Good piece Alastair. I know nobody except Corbyn wants it, but a summer or autumn election could still happen by accident. We could even get one in April.
The DUP have said they will vote against the government in a vote of confidence, if any deal with a backstop passes a ‘meaningful vote’, so we could have an almighty constitutional crisis as soon as this week.
Add in the Independent Group, and a couple more Con defections there leaves Con + DUP with no majority, and a whole pile of urgent legislation that needs to be passed.
Almost certainly too late for an April election now given that an election would have to be announced by next Wednesday for Polling Day to be 18th April. Unlikely that 25th April would be chosen as Local Elections are already scheduled for 2nd May.
Comments
It's worked. Id rather remain than see this government try for the next phase of all this.
As you say, it is a sensible tactical gambit for Labour at this stage, but a softer Brexit will not emerged, it will soon become clear that a second referendum is the only practical way forward.
So, is leaving a Union workable without breaking your economy or not?
TBH Malc - I think it is - and if you and your fellow Scots want to leave then Gods speed.
Just pointing out some people are applying double standards to the debate.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
And I guess London Bubble Labour need to do the same.
PS: Robertson born London.
I think Malcolm would accept that he's right-of-centre politically and he voted for Brexit. Ask him the what the likelihood is of his vote going Tory next (or any) time out.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
But it's much less clear that they will be sustainable in the long term - they seem much more amateurish than the SDP breakaway and the policy positions on their website are no more than motherhood and apple pie cliches.
PS: My hope is that after independence , the politicians would be cleared out and we would get decent representatives elected, forlorn as that hope may be. At minimum at least we could chuck them out rather than current position where we get what England votes for every time.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1104692494183350273
If that's the best the SNP have got they are really screwed.
After all on Brexit we all know the SNP position anyway.
SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford has been accused of “an odious attempt to re-write history” by playing down claims that he led a vendetta against the late Charles Kennedy.
The accusation was made by former Labour MP Brian Wilson who said the last months of Mr Kennedy's life were disfigured by the “disgraceful” campaign pursued by the SNP.
Mr Wilson said Mr Blackford led a campaign that “unleashed a torrent of abuse” against the former Lib Dem leader.
Mr Kennedy lost his Ross, Skye and Lochaber seat to Mr Blackford in the 2015 General Election after a bitter and deeply unpleasant campaign. Shortly afterwards the former MP died in Fort William following his long battle against alcoholism.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-s-ian-blackford-accused-of-disfiguring-last-months-of-charles-kennedy-s-life-1-4776721
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1104698838080610304
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
That's me persuaded.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/11/cheltenham/2019-03-12
...the Conservatives performed less well and Labour better in seats with more young adults - though once we take this into account, there is no indication...that constituencies with large numbers of students were particularly likely to swing towards the [Labour] party.
How did that work out for you?
Unlike the excitement ahead of next week's Australian Grand Prix.
https://order-order.com/2019/03/10/hunt-brexit-not-happening-devastating-tories/
Would you like a little wager on who goes up and who goes down SNP/Tories.
Until we know the fallout from Brexit (or not) it could go either way.
A bet right now would not be a strong indicator of belief in the result. And of course both could go up or down...
The latest figures I've seen are 100 per annum just a couple of years ago. Shockingly high in one sense, but obviously not a volume that would overwhelm the courts. Particularly as the advocates of this arbitrary power of the part of politicians are always so eager to point out that there is a right of appeal anyhow - albeit perhaps a right of appeal that may take years, and involve family members dying.