He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
I've not seen anyone seriously suggesting leaving that - but its equally ludicrous to suggest we won't protect those if we leave it. Some of the planets most civilised countries are not in the Convention and some rather unpleasant places are, so lets not pretend the Convention is perfect.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
I really don't want to live in the same country as you.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Whilst it is usually thought that people wish to maximise their own outcome and that politics is the means to do this, it is also true that for many the point of politics is to hurt or inhibit others. To minimise this, safeguards are in place to prevent "the tyranny of the majority" - the concept that a majority can do anything to a minority by virtue of superior numbers. The experiences of history demonstrate the necessity of these safeguards and that, absent such protections, somebody somewhere usually gets hurt in increasingly dreadful ways. Oversight by a third party is the best way to prevent that.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
To be honest, they haven't wanted that for a long time and some of them actively want to destroy them...
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
The right to judicial review.
So there will be no judicial review in five years?
Very first comment under that tweet is about Israel, unsurprisingly.
I have doubts about Nandy, but I think she is a deceptively good communicator - I know some have commented she has a naturally timid look, and the limited recognition of her in the Ashcroft polling included being out of her depth, but I think she has a level of quiet gravitas that, given time and prominence, could be quite effective.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
I had no idea that we only got all these rights after joining the ECHR... Oh wait, that's because we didn't!
P.S. The idea that the ECHR protects freedom of expression now is, sadly, utter horseshit.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Where does it say they want to destroy the rule of law?
Surely the risk is more from the consequences of what they do want, and lack of care for anything else? Cummings gives the impression of having an exceptionally closed mind - oh he is thoughtful and innovative to a degree, but once set on something it doesn't seem like he considers anything else, which can be very effective but if he ever cocks up, he'll cock up bigtime.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
The right to judicial review.
So there will be no judicial review in five years?
Will it be meaningful judicial review?
I don't currently believe we will be a lawless hellscape in a few years time, living in a Mad Max world with Immortan Boris and Rictus 'Dominicus' Erectus, but like that trans tweet case earlier today and the judgement quoting an old case about how 'a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom', it would be perfectly possible to retain all manner of rights on paper but have them be diminished to the point they were not what they once were or even ineffective.
Will that happen? Well I don't know., though I think it won't. But that there will likely not be a total eradication of various rights is not proof those with concerns are completely off base.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
But Boris has the moral authority of a won and done Brexit referendum behind him (and he is also devoid of any rival, unlike Blair with Brown)
My estimate is that Boris now has more relative, effective power than any prime minister since the victorious Thatcher in 1983, post Falklands. And she then changed the country.
I think that's true.
But I also think that he has relatively little time to do what he wants to do.
Right now, there is no effective opposition, at all. And he's just got Brexit done.
But the real governing starts here.
Yes, Boris is in any politician's dream position.
He has united his party, won a resounding majority. and expelled his foes within and without. The Opposition are in total disarray, and show no imminent signs of revival. The majority he won implies that he's likely in power for 10 years, not just 5.
He is ruthlessly and successfully purging any rivals, indeed he now has no Tory rivals.
The only real trouble (domestically) is a secessionist movement in Scotland, but he can legally ignore that, and by ignoring it he is likely to make it explode, and destroy itself.
All that is great for him. He is as powerful Thatcher in 83. BUT has he got the intellectual guts and moral good sense to do what she then did? THAT is the question.
I have no honest idea. And, as you say, the clock ticks ever faster. And Brexit must be "finished".
I genuinely hope Johnson does not reach the same conclusions as you have about how powerful he has become and how he can exercise (or as you have implied down thread, abuse) that power.
But he is as straight as an arrow. His moral compass is pointing the right way. I would be very interested to understand why he didn't like Mr Cummings. (My guess, for what it's worth, is that Mr Hitchens believes that while winning is important, that you must also play by the rules.)
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Not sure how serious the suggestion is - eadric reminds me curiously of an old poster who used to show a wistful enthusiasm for Italian strong men along the lines of Mussolini. Which was possibly just a pose.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
"His" expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals? Those criminals were being deported until laws passed under the last Labour government.
I would say Johnson has a huge structural advantage. As long as the Leave block continue to support him and Remainers are demoralised and split he can do whatever he wants. He is however acting very recklessly in creating enemies and storing up problems, which is unlike early Thatcher and Blair. He is also dependent on that Leave / Remain divide being baked in.
Johnson needs enemies. It’s the only way he retains control of the two very different voting blocs that put him into power. We have perpetual conflict to look forward to over the coming years. That’s why, though I want Nandy to win the Labour leadership, I am very relaxed about Starmer doing so. After a few years of Cummings’ relentless confrontations at home and abroad, and the perpetual instability that brings, Starmer stands every chance of seeming like a tonic. He’d lose against Johnson now. In 2024, he may not.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Where does it say they want to destroy the rule of law?
I suspect they are quite content for the Executive to draw up law rubber stamped by an acquiescent HoC and a favourably loaded HoL.They don't seem to like judicial scrutiny of that law too much however.
Klobuchar fading a little scrutiny all of a sudden... https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/14/amy-klobuchar-2020-election-115124 There was the withering interview on “The View” this week, in which the Minnesota senator was asked why she “failed to prosecute a single killing by the police” during her time as a county prosecutor. Then came the circulation of video in which Klobuchar called for a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border during a Senate campaign debate in 2006. And touching down in Nevada late Thursday, Klobuchar wasn’t 20 minutes into a presidential campaign forum before a question about her record on race arose...
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
The right to judicial review.
So there will be no judicial review in five years?
It will be far more restricted than it is now. So, for example, the PM will have the ability to close down Parliament for as long as he likes, whenever he likes. The executive will have much more power over all of our lives, with far less fear of judicial scrutiny.
That said, the government cannot touch Scottish courts. Their role will become very interesting.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
"His" expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals? Those criminals were being deported until laws passed under the last Labour government.
I was not arguing that convicted foreign nationals should not be deported. It was however reported that Cummings was furious that the courts had suspended the removal of some deportees over legitimate safety concerns.
I would say Johnson has a huge structural advantage. As long as the Leave block continue to support him and Remainers are demoralised and split he can do whatever he wants. He is however acting very recklessly in creating enemies and storing up problems, which is unlike early Thatcher and Blair. He is also dependent on that Leave / Remain divide being baked in.
Johnson needs enemies. It’s the only way he retains control of the two very different voting blocs that put him into power. We have perpetual conflict to look forward to over the coming years. That’s why, though I want Nandy to win the Labour leadership, I am very relaxed about Starmer doing so. After a few years of Cummings’ relentless confrontations at home and abroad, and the perpetual instability that brings, Starmer stands every chance of seeming like a tonic. He’d lose against Johnson now. In 2024, he may not.
Accumulating enemies on the Tory backbenches will not be to his future advantage.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
The right to judicial review.
So there will be no judicial review in five years?
It will be far more restricted than it is now. So, for example, the PM will have the ability to close down Parliament for as long as he likes, whenever he likes. The executive will have much more power over all of our lives, with far less fear of judicial scrutiny.
That said, the government cannot touch Scottish courts. Their role will become very interesting.
How long do you think the longest prorogation in the next Parliament will be?
I would say Johnson has a huge structural advantage. As long as the Leave block continue to support him and Remainers are demoralised and split he can do whatever he wants. He is however acting very recklessly in creating enemies and storing up problems, which is unlike early Thatcher and Blair. He is also dependent on that Leave / Remain divide being baked in.
Johnson needs enemies. It’s the only way he retains control of the two very different voting blocs that put him into power. We have perpetual conflict to look forward to over the coming years. That’s why, though I want Nandy to win the Labour leadership, I am very relaxed about Starmer doing so. After a few years of Cummings’ relentless confrontations at home and abroad, and the perpetual instability that brings, Starmer stands every chance of seeming like a tonic. He’d lose against Johnson now. In 2024, he may not.
I am convinced Brexit could still go horribly wrong for Johnson after January 2021. The trouble is, that being so, it will be the rest of us taking a beating on Johnson's behalf.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
"His" expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals? Those criminals were being deported until laws passed under the last Labour government.
I was not arguing that convicted foreign nationals should not be deported. It was however reported that Cummings was furious that the courts had suspended the removal of some deportees over legitimate safety concerns.
Yep, exactly. Cummings believes there should be no checks on his power. He believes that he - as head of the government - should be able to do as he wishes. He also likes battles. He needs them to maintain control. So, there will be constant conflict with the judiciary, the BBC, Tory rebels, the EU, the ECHR, Ireland and many others.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
But Boris has the moral authority of a won and done Brexit referendum behind him (and he is also devoid of any rival, unlike Blair with Brown)
My estimate is that Boris now has more relative, effective power than any prime minister since the victorious Thatcher in 1983, post Falklands. And she then changed the country.
I think that's true.
But I also think that he has relatively little time to do what he wants to do.
Right now, there is no effective opposition, at all. And he's just got Brexit done.
But the real governing starts here.
Yes, Boris is in any politician's dream position.
He has united his party, won a resounding majority. and expelled his foes within and without. The Opposition are in total disarray, and show no imminent signs of revival. The majority he won implies that he's likely in power for 10 years, not just 5.
He is ruthlessly and successfully purging any rivals, indeed he now has no Tory rivals.
The only real trouble (domestically) is a secessionist movement in Scotland, but he can legally ignore that, and by ignoring it he is likely to make it explode, and destroy itself.
All that is great for him. He is as powerful Thatcher in 83. BUT has he got the intellectual guts and moral good sense to do what she then did? THAT is the question.
I have no honest idea. And, as you say, the clock ticks ever faster. And Brexit must be "finished".
Macmillan achieved a majority of over 100 in 1959 - yet the Tories lost in 1964. Likewise Wilson 's majority in 1966 was 97 - the Tories won a majority of 31 in 1970.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
The right to judicial review.
So there will be no judicial review in five years?
It will be far more restricted than it is now. So, for example, the PM will have the ability to close down Parliament for as long as he likes, whenever he likes. The executive will have much more power over all of our lives, with far less fear of judicial scrutiny.
That said, the government cannot touch Scottish courts. Their role will become very interesting.
How long do you think the longest prorogation in the next Parliament will be?
Who knows? What I do know, though, is that Cummings wants the power to decide without having to worry about the courts telling him he can’t.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
"His" expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals? Those criminals were being deported until laws passed under the last Labour government.
I was not arguing that convicted foreign nationals should not be deported. It was however reported that Cummings was furious that the courts had suspended the removal of some deportees over legitimate safety concerns.
What if the voters who elected the Government have similar attitudes to the courts' interference?
I would say Johnson has a huge structural advantage. As long as the Leave block continue to support him and Remainers are demoralised and split he can do whatever he wants. He is however acting very recklessly in creating enemies and storing up problems, which is unlike early Thatcher and Blair. He is also dependent on that Leave / Remain divide being baked in.
Johnson needs enemies. It’s the only way he retains control of the two very different voting blocs that put him into power. We have perpetual conflict to look forward to over the coming years. That’s why, though I want Nandy to win the Labour leadership, I am very relaxed about Starmer doing so. After a few years of Cummings’ relentless confrontations at home and abroad, and the perpetual instability that brings, Starmer stands every chance of seeming like a tonic. He’d lose against Johnson now. In 2024, he may not.
Accumulating enemies on the Tory backbenches will not be to his future advantage.
He’ll accumulate just enough bogey men and women in the knowledge everyone else will do as their told, just like the Cabinet!
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
"His" expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals? Those criminals were being deported until laws passed under the last Labour government.
I was not arguing that convicted foreign nationals should not be deported. It was however reported that Cummings was furious that the courts had suspended the removal of some deportees over legitimate safety concerns.
What if the voters who elected the Government have similar attitudes to the courts' interference?
The courts are there for all of us, not just the minority of people who vote Tory.
When I was in university (2000/01 academic year I think) I bought a poster of the famous picture of the Chinese man stood in front of the tanks at Tian'an'men Square as I found it inspiring. Showed it to my friends in my University Hall of Residence and got death-glares from a group of Chinese students who clearly found that offensive. Over the next 4 years while I was at university my experience was repeatedly that Chinese students over here were very supporting of the Chinese regime.
That was surprising to me. I had assumed that students in the UK and out of China would be of a liberal and supportive view, but that wasn't the case. I suppose many/most perhaps have family who are doing well in China and the students here are as supportive of their countries regime as we can be of our own. Except that we seem more likely to criticise our own government.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
Blair's polling position was much stronger in 1997/1998.
Blair started off too timid, and with hindsight surely regretted it. Then overshot with Iraq.
Johnson started off too bold. We shall see.
Seriously - withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights?
Seriously? The Tories no longer want to protect the right to property or to free association or to a family life? Or to a fair trial? Or freedom of thought, conscience or religion? Or freedom of expression? Or freedom from discrimination?
Why do we need a european court to protect those rights?
Because Cummings and Sue Ellen want to destroy our rule of law.
Give up with the hyperbole.
Unfortunately it is not hyperbole, it is government policy to politicize the courts and reduce our rights to legal protection.
So which rights and legal protections do you think will be lost in the coming five years?
It is hard to say, but Cummings reported rage over the courts questioning his expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals sets the stall out quite clearly.
"His" expulsion of ex-con Caribbean nationals? Those criminals were being deported until laws passed under the last Labour government.
It was however reported that Cummings was furious that the courts had suspended the removal of some deportees over legitimate safety concerns.
What if the voters who elected the Government have similar attitudes to the courts' interference?
The courts are there for all of us, not just the minority of people who vote Tory.
If Parliament changes the law then that's not "political interference", that's a new law taking place that supercedes any predecessor law.
The courts don't have a right or duty to implement the old law once a new one is passed, they without fear or favour must implement the new law the government passed.
If Parliament changes the law then that's not "political interference", that's a new law taking place that supercedes any predecessor law.
The courts don't have a right or duty to implement the old law once a new one is passed, they without fear or favour must implement the new law the government passed.
Parliament sets the law, the courts enforce it.
Absolutely. If the government decides it wants to make itself more powerful and less accountable for its actions it can do so. And, no doubt, many people who once claimed to be in favour of liberty and the rights of the individual, and opposed to an all-powerful state, will applaud that.
What if the voters who elected the Government have similar attitudes to the courts' interference?
The courts are there for all of us, not just the minority of people who vote Tory.
Absolutely. The courts are there to implement the laws that the Tories pass.
They’re there to uphold and apply all our law without fear or favour, entirely free of political interference.
That's what I said.
Nor exactly. They apply the law which Parliament passes; the colour of the party in power is irrelevant. They also apply, for example, the Common Law which Parliament had no hand in passing.
What if the voters who elected the Government have similar attitudes to the courts' interference?
The courts are there for all of us, not just the minority of people who vote Tory.
Absolutely. The courts are there to implement the laws that the Tories pass.
They’re there to uphold and apply all our law without fear or favour, entirely free of political interference.
That's what I said.
Perhaps some don't understand the fact that the law can be changed?
Of course it can. The government can give itself more power and reduce the rights of citizens to challenge it. Cummings can make himself far more powerful and even less accountable. Of that there is no doubt.
But I also think that he has relatively little time to do what he wants to do.
Right now, there is no effective opposition, at all. And he's just got Brexit done.
But the real governing starts here.
Yes, Boris is in any politician's dream position.
He has united his party, won a resounding majority. and expelled his foes within and without. The Opposition are in total disarray, and show no imminent signs of revival. The majority he won implies that he's likely in power for 10 years, not just 5.
He is ruthlessly and successfully purging any rivals, indeed he now has no Tory rivals.
The only real trouble (domestically) is a secessionist movement in Scotland, but he can legally ignore that, and by ignoring it he is likely to make it explode, and destroy itself.
All that is great for him. He is as powerful Thatcher in 83. BUT has he got the intellectual guts and moral good sense to do what she then did? THAT is the question.
I have no honest idea. And, as you say, the clock ticks ever faster. And Brexit must be "finished".
Macmillan achieved a majority of over 100 in 1959 - yet the Tories lost in 1964. Likewise Wilson 's majority in 1966 was 97 - the Tories won a majority of 31 in 1970.
The '64 election can be explained away by the change in Prime Minister and scandal. But the 1970 election puzzles me. I discussed it here a few weeks ago. Discarding the football explanation, various explanations include trade deficit, devaluation(?) and Powellism. Whist all true, they don't feel like the kind of thing that would overturn a 90+ majority. So it's lurking at the back of my mind. One of the better explanations was that the late poll recovery was anomalous/artefactual and that the Wilson administration had actually been quite unpopular thru 1969.
1970 was an odd one; read the Times for the week of the election (it's online) and the mood change is dramatic: before the election Heath was described as tired and the subject of plots by grandees, afterwards he is cheerful and vibrant.
When I was in university (2000/01 academic year I think) I bought a poster of the famous picture of the Chinese man stood in front of the tanks at Tian'an'men Square as I found it inspiring. Showed it to my friends in my University Hall of Residence and got death-glares from a group of Chinese students who clearly found that offensive. Over the next 4 years while I was at university my experience was repeatedly that Chinese students over here were very supporting of the Chinese regime.
That was surprising to me. I had assumed that students in the UK and out of China would be of a liberal and supportive view, but that wasn't the case. I suppose many/most perhaps have family who are doing well in China and the students here are as supportive of their countries regime as we can be of our own. Except that we seem more likely to criticise our own government.
You’re not linely to be allowed to travel abroad as a Chinese citizen if you are a critic of the Chinese state.
What if the voters who elected the Government have similar attitudes to the courts' interference?
The courts are there for all of us, not just the minority of people who vote Tory.
Absolutely. The courts are there to implement the laws that the Tories pass.
They’re there to uphold and apply all our law without fear or favour, entirely free of political interference.
That's what I said.
The common law is not passed by the Tories. The Tories can, though, pass laws that remove common law rights. This is what they will do.
Moreover there is a political difference between stretching the exercise of a prerogative power (as was recently done with the attempted prorogation), and legislating to award the executive an increase in that prerogative power. The latter is considerably more difficult, even with a decent majority, and there would be a political price to be paid for it.
But I also think that he has relatively little time to do what he wants to do.
Right now, there is no effective opposition, at all. And he's just got Brexit done.
But the real governing starts here.
Yes, Boris is in any politician's dream position.
He has united his party, won a resounding majority. and expelled his foes within and without. The Opposition are in total disarray, and show no imminent signs of revival. The majority he won implies that he's likely in power for 10 years, not just 5.
He is ruthlessly and successfully purging any rivals, indeed he now has no Tory rivals.
The only real trouble (domestically) is a secessionist movement in Scotland, but he can legally ignore that, and by ignoring it he is likely to make it explode, and destroy itself.
All that is great for him. He is as powerful Thatcher in 83. BUT has he got the intellectual guts and moral good sense to do what she then did? THAT is the question.
I have no honest idea. And, as you say, the clock ticks ever faster. And Brexit must be "finished".
Macmillan achieved a majority of over 100 in 1959 - yet the Tories lost in 1964. Likewise Wilson 's majority in 1966 was 97 - the Tories won a majority of 31 in 1970.
The '64 election can be explained away by the change in Prime Minister and scandal. But the 1970 election puzzles me. I discussed it here a few weeks ago. Discarding the football explanation, various explanations include trade deficit, devaluation(?) and Powellism. Whist all true, they don't feel like the kind of thing that would overturn a 90+ majority. So it's lurking at the back of my mind. One of the better explanations was that the late poll recovery was anomalous/artefactual and that the Wilson administration had actually been quite unpopular thru 1969.
1970 was an odd one; read the Times for the week of the election (it's online) and the mood change is dramatic: before the election Heath was described as tired and the subject of plots by grandees, afterwards he is cheerful and vibrant.
I really do not believe that the 1964 election can be explained by the change of PM - or the Profumo scandal. Indeed under Alec Douglas-Home the Tories greatly improved their position relative to the outlook facing them when he became PM in mid-October 1963. Under Macmillan the Tories had become seriously unpopular since the beginning of 1962 - their heavy loss to the Liberals occurring in March. Other by election losses to Labour ensued in the final year of Gaitskell's life - and under his successor Harold Wilson who became Leader in February1963. Macmillan's resignation is likely to have helped the Tories in a similar way to Thatcher's replacement by Major at the end of 1990.
Most of the 519 offenders in the first cohort of the trial had been arrested for violence, theft, drug possession or criminal damage. About half had no previous convictions but others had been arrested as many as 52 times....
Clearly a 15% drop is no miracle crime cure, but it is undeniably better than the alternative.
People like single payer healthcare. People hate losing their current health plan.
That’s a non sequitur. Single payer means that the government pays the healthcare providers’ charges. People would still use the providers they’re already using, and in fact would have more choice because they wouldn’t be tied into their insurance company’s BS “network”.
He needs to spend some ASAP. Extend LHR. Approve HS2 (done). Neutralise Number 11 (done). Withdraw from the ECHR (coming). Destroy the Blob. Reorder the BBC. Overthrow academe. Neutralise the judges.
Boris is so powerful right now he makes Blair, in his pomp, look like Theresa May.
This will not last. Use that power NOW, Boris.
I really don't want to live in the same country as you.
Comments
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/after-brexit-they-will-come-for-human-rights-and-this-time-the-public-debate-must-be-won
https://twitter.com/KyleKulinski/status/1228117149971091458
Not that this is a particularly new feeling...
I have doubts about Nandy, but I think she is a deceptively good communicator - I know some have commented she has a naturally timid look, and the limited recognition of her in the Ashcroft polling included being out of her depth, but I think she has a level of quiet gravitas that, given time and prominence, could be quite effective.
P.S. The idea that the ECHR protects freedom of expression now is, sadly, utter horseshit.
I don't currently believe we will be a lawless hellscape in a few years time, living in a Mad Max world with Immortan Boris and Rictus 'Dominicus' Erectus, but like that trans tweet case earlier today and the judgement quoting an old case about how 'a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom', it would be perfectly possible to retain all manner of rights on paper but have them be diminished to the point they were not what they once were or even ineffective.
Will that happen? Well I don't know., though I think it won't. But that there will likely not be a total eradication of various rights is not proof those with concerns are completely off base.
But he is as straight as an arrow. His moral compass is pointing the right way. I would be very interested to understand why he didn't like Mr Cummings. (My guess, for what it's worth, is that Mr Hitchens believes that while winning is important, that you must also play by the rules.)
OTOH, with Braverman as the new AG...
When forced to choose, though...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/14/amy-klobuchar-2020-election-115124
There was the withering interview on “The View” this week, in which the Minnesota senator was asked why she “failed to prosecute a single killing by the police” during her time as a county prosecutor.
Then came the circulation of video in which Klobuchar called for a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border during a Senate campaign debate in 2006. And touching down in Nevada late Thursday, Klobuchar wasn’t 20 minutes into a presidential campaign forum before a question about her record on race arose...
That said, the government cannot touch Scottish courts. Their role will become very interesting.
When I was in university (2000/01 academic year I think) I bought a poster of the famous picture of the Chinese man stood in front of the tanks at Tian'an'men Square as I found it inspiring. Showed it to my friends in my University Hall of Residence and got death-glares from a group of Chinese students who clearly found that offensive. Over the next 4 years while I was at university my experience was repeatedly that Chinese students over here were very supporting of the Chinese regime.
That was surprising to me. I had assumed that students in the UK and out of China would be of a liberal and supportive view, but that wasn't the case. I suppose many/most perhaps have family who are doing well in China and the students here are as supportive of their countries regime as we can be of our own. Except that we seem more likely to criticise our own government.
The courts don't have a right or duty to implement the old law once a new one is passed, they without fear or favour must implement the new law the government passed.
Parliament sets the law, the courts enforce it.
1970 was an odd one; read the Times for the week of the election (it's online) and the mood change is dramatic: before the election Heath was described as tired and the subject of plots by grandees, afterwards he is cheerful and vibrant.
The latter is considerably more difficult, even with a decent majority, and there would be a political price to be paid for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/14/durham-pioneering-police-scheme-slashes-reoffending-rates-rehabilitation-programme
The first results of the trial, seen by the Guardian, found a 15-percentage point drop in reoffending after two years among those who took part in rehabilitation compared with those who did not.
Most of the 519 offenders in the first cohort of the trial had been arrested for violence, theft, drug possession or criminal damage. About half had no previous convictions but others had been arrested as many as 52 times....
Clearly a 15% drop is no miracle crime cure, but it is undeniably better than the alternative.