Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .
The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !
The fence sitting was the only option .
And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.
This is right. The election was won by Johnson with Get Brexit Done. It appealed to both Leavers and the many unaligned people who were fed up with the impasse. Plus Johnson himself has strong appeal to the particular voters he needed for his big win. WWC leavers. The GE with that timing and that framing was unwinnable for Labour. If they had stayed as a Leave party they would have lost less and fewer Red Wall seats but would have risked a mass defection to the LDs in Remain areas which could have been much worse for them. Their Brexit policy was, as you say, the least bad one available. What then turned a 30 seat loss into an 80 seat loss was the unpopularity and divisiveness of their leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
I can’t argue with that. Either Corbyn or Brexit were enough: both together gave Labour their worst result since 1935.
Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election
Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
Get Brexit Done walked all over it
No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
It was in 2017...
No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.
Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
“Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.
The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.
The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
Like they did in 2017?
The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
Kind of makes the point. It was successful in protecting them from the resurgent LDs (who, remember, won the Euro elections in London). It helped them keep seats such as Sheffield Hallam, while protecting Canterbury etc from the Tories. Labour's defeat could have been much worse, were it not for the way in which Starmer was able to rein in the Corbyn crew's indifference to an issue that meant so much to so many Labour voters.
Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
The solution to a problem of systematic bad decision-making is not preventing the review of those decisions.
I agree but we need to look at the decisions, not the process. And we need to reduce the number of decisions to some manageable level.
Be careful what you wish for. Judicial review started when governments sought to exclude the courts from looking at the substance. I very much doubt Boris Johnson intends to reverse that.
Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
It’s a real shame that Long Bailey isn’t going to win. Five years of her talking about trans rights could kill off the Labour Party.
Watching the Labour leadership election turn into an almighty slanging match between feminists and trans activists is going to be very funny to watch - from 3,500 miles away!
Polls show the main issue at the GE for Labour was Corbyn not their Brexit policy which was the least worst position . There was no perfect solution to that .
The way some people go on they think ignoring over 75% of Labour members , and a huge majority of Labour voters who are pro EU was going to not have its drawbacks !
The fence sitting was the only option .
And all this derision aimed at Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma . He looks like a leader , doesn’t have a load of baggage like Corbyn and will appeal to older voters who Labour desperately need to win back.
This is right. The election was won by Johnson with Get Brexit Done. It appealed to both Leavers and the many unaligned people who were fed up with the impasse. Plus Johnson himself has strong appeal to the particular voters he needed for his big win. WWC leavers. The GE with that timing and that framing was unwinnable for Labour. If they had stayed as a Leave party they would have lost less and fewer Red Wall seats but would have risked a mass defection to the LDs in Remain areas, which could have been much worse for them. Their Brexit policy was, as you say, the least bad one available. What then turned a 30 seat Con win into an 80 seat Con win was the unpopularity and divisiveness of Jeremy Corbyn.
You're on fire this morning, Kinabalu. First in the satirical vein, and subsequently in the analytical.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
The man is now a SPAD at number 10, and yes I agree he spouts idiotic nonsense.
If you read that PoliticsHome article, Sabisky comes over as near-certifiable IMO. If Cummings keeps adding "weirdos" like this, how long before the govt becomes hostile to its own citizens?
Apparently Sabisky orders Boris around, which says very little for Boris's leadership....
Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
...
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
In that case, chasing after the Judges is not the answer either.
Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
The solution to a problem of systematic bad decision-making is not preventing the review of those decisions.
I agree but we need to look at the decisions, not the process. And we need to reduce the number of decisions to some manageable level.
Be careful what you wish for. Judicial review started when governments sought to exclude the courts from looking at the substance. I very much doubt Boris Johnson intends to reverse that.
I agree that rights of appeal are being unreasonably restricted by current legislation, particularly in the field of immigration. The double appeals rule means the appellate courts will not look at decisions that are not of general importance, even if they are probably wrong. This is unacceptable and in my view makes a mockery of the rule of law.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
I disagree that it is random and ineffective. It is something. But it is not the problem either.
The fact that the government is attacking it is evidence that it has not real interest in solving the real problems you have identified. This is about power - about the government wanting to grab more power from the public, from the people it is meant to serve.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
The man is now a SPAD at number 10, and yes I agree he spouts idiotic nonsense.
If you read that PoliticsHome article, Sabisky comes over as near-certifiable IMO. If Cummings keeps adding "weirdos" like this, how long before the govt becomes hostile to its own citizens?
Apparently Sabisky orders Boris around, which says very little for Boris's leadership....
Sabisky is a low-grade version of Keith Joseph, who mused about something similar in the mid-1970’s.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
I disagree that it is random and ineffective. It is something. But it is not the problem either.
The fact that the government is attacking it is evidence that it has not real interest in solving the real problems you have identified. This is about power - about the government wanting to grab more power from the public, from the people it is meant to serve.
It’s worse. It’s about accountability and the lack thereof. Lack of accountability or scrutiny does not increase the quality of decisions, it reduces it. We need effective means of challenging decisions with life changing effects. JR is not it, even if it’s all we have at the moment.
Yada yada yada, all very sensible and judicious, lots of fine words and nicely structured argument, but the Header writer really ought to stop the incessant moaning and get with the program. "Boris" has a stonking great mandate from The People to Get Shit Done and neither he nor them People - the real people, that is, not all those non-people who won't put shoulders to the wheel and get behind this great nation of ours - neither "Boris" nor his People want to be poncing around having to explain themselves to quisling cock-blocking Judges and the like.
If you read that PoliticsHome article, Sabisky comes over as near-certifiable IMO. If Cummings keeps adding "weirdos" like this, how long before the govt becomes hostile to its own citizens?
Apparently Sabisky orders Boris around, which says very little for Boris's leadership....
Sabisky is a low-grade version of Keith Joseph, who mused about something similar in the mid-1970’s.
ATM a lot of kite flying is being done - it provides material for the otherwise unemployable press hacks. Most of them always come to nothing and some are clearly issued as distractions. It is the same every year.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
I disagree that it is random and ineffective. It is something. But it is not the problem either.
The fact that the government is attacking it is evidence that it has not real interest in solving the real problems you have identified. This is about power - about the government wanting to grab more power from the public, from the people it is meant to serve.
It’s worse. It’s about accountability and the lack thereof. Lack of accountability or scrutiny does not increase the quality of decisions, it reduces it. We need effective means of challenging decisions with life changing effects. JR is not it, even if it’s all we have at the moment.
As if this government cares two hoots about accountability and scrutiny.... it does not want to be challenged. We’re all meant to chant along like the quasi-Maoist cadets in Cabinet reciting their catechism. It ‘s both pathetic and worrying.
Anyway am staring at Black Combe from my bed. The day is calm and clear after yesterday’s storms and I have a mumps-ridden daughter to attend to.
Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
...
You are making my point for me. Sort out the immigration system properly - not just by wittering about an “Australia-style” points system but by making the every day system actually work efficiently and effectively - and there would be far less opportunity for “plane blocking” judicial review claims. Those Jamaican criminals would have been on that plane had the government bothered to make it possible for legal advice to be obtained. There are very real problems to be solved here - but the government is deliberately ignoring them and attacking the wrong targets.
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
In that case, chasing after the Judges is not the answer either.
But it looks good in the papers.....
There are times when I read decisions of the current President of the Supreme Court and trawl through page after page about public policy, it’s alleged compatibility with other policies and principles and I frankly wonder where the law features in these discussions at all. The Human Rights Act has definitely increased this tendency and its unwelcome. The problem is not the Convention but the ever increasing extension of it by the ECHR. Sumption was excellent on this in his Reith lectures last year. It’s ultimately undemocratic.
I can’t argue with that. Either Corbyn or Brexit were enough: both together gave Labour their worst result since 1935.
There's a certain symmetry to it. Brexit caused Corbyn to do better than par in 2017 and worse than par in 2019. IMO, par is 240 seats. Meaning that in a world without Brexit a Corbyn Labour party wins approx 240 seats in a GE. However, I still believe a GE can be won from the Left. With a manifesto just as radical as 2019 whilst losing some freight and the 70s vibe, and a leader exactly likewise - as radical but more focused and contemporary - I think we can win next time. And I hope we do go that route. I do not want to see a return to timid tinkerism.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
It may not be the answer but until the system is resolved into something fit for purpose it's the only thing / means people have got to appeal..
Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election
Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
Get Brexit Done walked all over it
No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
It was in 2017...
No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.
Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
“Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.
The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.
The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
Like they did in 2017?
The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
Kind of makes the point. It was successful in protecting them from the resurgent LDs (who, remember, won the Euro elections in London). It helped them keep seats such as Sheffield Hallam, while protecting Canterbury etc from the Tories. Labour's defeat could have been much worse, were it not for the way in which Starmer was able to rein in the Corbyn crew's indifference to an issue that meant so much to so many Labour voters.
Could have been much worse than the worst shellacking since before WWII? I don't recall you predicting that before the election.
Remember that any vote lost to the Lib Dems is worth 1 vote bit any vote lost to the Tories is worth 2 votes. Plus the yellows are potential allies while the blues never are. The sane priority is to try to not lose votes to the Tories.
Hmm... I have friends (honestly) who do a lot of immigration work. These include appeals to the Upper Tribunal and judicial review in the Court of Session. I think that @Cyclefree ’s description is more than somewhat idealised.
Firstly, it is true that the quality of decision making at both Home Office and First tier is shockingly poor. The default seems to be refusal by officials who are simply buried under the case work. One of the reasons for that is that so many decisions have to be made multiple times. Applications for leave to remain are refused but all too often little is done. Fresh applications are made due to changing circumstances as children appear, relationships established etc, etc. A surprising number of these relationships are homosexual, something that makes returning the applicant to a lot of countries problematic.
The whole system is creaking. Judicial review is often used as a “plane stopper”. The cost to the public purse is very considerable. Tickets have been booked not only for the person being deported but also their security detail. Tens of thousands will have been lost on those not on that plane to Jamaica. Once again the main arguments arise because the system has not processed earlier decisions.
I don’t think that it’s fit for purpose. I also have deep reservations about judicial review. It focuses on the process, not the substance. Alleged procedural flaws are used to interfere with good or correct decisions but often fails to interfere with inept or poor ones. Substantive appeals are much better. Too many JRs proceed on a hypothesis of fact that may bear little examination.
For me we need a clean slate with large scale amnesties. Otherwise we will continue to blunder along with a system that is unfair, random and ineffective.
What it needs is anything but an amnesty, chuck the lot out and start from scratch , the process should take no more than 3 months from start to finish. We only have as many due to being soft marks who take years and years to do anything , only ;lawyers making a killing out of it, meanwhile the miscreants get families setup , miraculously discover they are homosexual , get a cat , etc etc. System is a joke and only good for lawyers and the associated whining liberal snowflakes.
We are in agreement about that. What I am saying is that judicial review is a random and ineffective solution to problems created by a system not fit for purpose. It is not the answer.
It may not be the answer but until the system is resolved into something fit for purpose it's the only thing / means people have got to appeal..
I don’t dispute that. Many of the problems here have very deep roots but a lot come from May’s time at the Home Office and her “hostile environment”. We need to undo the structures and the mind set she put in place. It is unBritish.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election
Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
Get Brexit Done walked all over it
No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
It was in 2017...
No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.
Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
“Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.
The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.
The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
Like they did in 2017?
The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
Kind of makes the point. It was successful in protecting them from the resurgent LDs (who, remember, won the Euro elections in London). It helped them keep seats such as Sheffield Hallam, while protecting Canterbury etc from the Tories. Labour's defeat could have been much worse, were it not for the way in which Starmer was able to rein in the Corbyn crew's indifference to an issue that meant so much to so many Labour voters.
Could have been much worse than the worst shellacking since before WWII? I don't recall you predicting that before the election.
Remember that any vote lost to the Lib Dems is worth 1 vote bit any vote lost to the Tories is worth 2 votes. Plus the yellows are potential allies while the blues never are. The sane priority is to try to not lose votes to the Tories.
I rather think I did! Though, until then, a lifelong Labour voter, I voted Lib Dem in 2019.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
Posts like this need a LOL button, rather than a like button!
I appreciate that we can't comment on anything that Burgon says because to do so would be to give rise to accusations of "bullying". There's no need to do so however, as his tweets speak for themselves.
Nonetheless, a word of warning about repeating Burgon's tweets. Their potency seems to be increasing. At some stage, a Burgon comment could cause mass fatalities as a result of rolling about in uncontrollable laughter following exposure, a Monty Python "killer joke" that becomes a pandemic in the age of the internet. Those almost in their 80s with a history of heart attacks must be considered especially vulnerable.
For example, what excuse does Johnson have for not embarking in a crash programme of flood defences, built at the speed of a Chinese hospital, now that money is no object?
Or are the Conservatives only interested in public spending that serves the needs of political and business elites?
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
For example, what excuse does Johnson have for not embarking in a crash programme of flood defences, built at the speed of a Chinese hospital, now that money is no object?
Or are the Conservatives only interested in public spending that serves the needs of political and business elites?
Yes, trying to bluff my way out a hole there. Fact is, I used the Yankee spelling. Don't mind fessing up to you about it but don't tell that @Luckyguy1983 Construct. Not prepared to lose any face with him. Forever on my case about this and that.
I see PB favourite Richard Burgon has crashed the clown car again....I won't sign the Jewish board of deputies pledge card, because I don't believe the pledge which simply says to engage with main Jewish groups.
His objection is he takes that to mean he isn't allowed to speak to what he calls fringe Jewish groups.
When challenged by Sophie Ridge on where does it say this, no answer, just banging on about what about gay Jews.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
Posts like this need a LOL button, rather than a like button!
What's new? An earlier Tory said in my youth that the lower orders were breeding too fast, ensuring that he'd never become leader
Yes, trying to bluff my way out a hole there. Fact is, I used the Yankee spelling. Don't mind fessing up to you about it but don't tell that @Luckyguy1983 Construct. Not prepared to lose any face with him. Forever on my case about this and that.
Yes, trying to bluff my way out a hole there. Fact is, I used the Yankee spelling. Don't mind fessing up to you about it but don't tell that @Luckyguy1983 Construct. Not prepared to lose any face with him. Forever on my case about this and that.
I knew this was Cyclefree before I got to the bottom by the length 😉
Think I need a coffee before I tackle this one..
.
Three points:
1. Many human rights cases are brought by people who are not criminals but by the forgotten and unloved, such as the case being brought by those with learning disabilities who are treated appallingly. They do not get much attention. So it is easy for you to say “oh the public is fed up with criminals taking the piss”. The reality is that the majority are not criminals taking the piss but people who are desperate and resorting to the courts because it is their last resort.
2. Even criminals should have resort to the law. This may be unpopular but in a civilised society it is essential. Now there are certainly improvements which can be made in stopping endless hopeless appeals etc but the reason I quoted the figures for 2018 is to show that the overwhelming majority of claims for JR are turned down. Hence my question as to whether there is a real problem here.
2. The public has lost trust in the police and the criminal justice system. See here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/failing-police-rumbled-by-weary-public-7lwvxrdr6. But that is as a result of prolonged and significant under-investment in and cuts to all aspects of the criminal justice system: police, courts, legal aid, forensic services, prisons, probation services etc. One recent example: an incident of alleged GBH in October 2017 is not going to go to trial until spring 2021.
Address these issues and the issues I have identified in relation to the police (see here -https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/j) and you would do far more to improve our justice system and start the process of restoring trust than attacking the ability of the citizen to hold the government to account via judicial review.
I think there is considerable sympathy for people with learning disabilities who find themselves with problems. But not from the authorities in Rotherham, Bradford and other towns, who were much more concerned with ‘community relations’ than investigating serious criminal allegations.
I think there’s very little sympathy with the police, who have for years appeared to prioritise dealing with Twitter spats and speed cameras, over gang violence and moped-riding muggers.
I agree that even criminals are entitled to due process, that’s a fundamental concept of law, but the current system is seen by many as a pisstake - with appeal after publically-funded baseless appeal, designed only to prevent the outcome rather than advance the course of justice.
Why on Earth should foreign criminals not be deported straight from prison, and make their case from abroad to be allowed back?
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
At one stage in my life I worked with the local Family Planning Service, including the Young Persons Service. However such services appear to have been cut back under the Lansley reforms. What was noticeable about those services was the fact that girls under 16 were very willing to attend and the staff were very supportive.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
The man is now a SPAD at number 10, and yes I agree he spouts idiotic nonsense.
If you read that PoliticsHome article, Sabisky comes over as near-certifiable IMO. If Cummings keeps adding "weirdos" like this, how long before the govt becomes hostile to its own citizens?
Apparently Sabisky orders Boris around, which says very little for Boris's leadership....
Sabisky is a low-grade version of Keith Joseph, who mused about something similar in the mid-1970’s.
And Joseph became one of the chief architects of Thatcherism and a major influence on Thatcher during her PMship. Should we look forward to BJism or would that be too much of a step into defined, coherent policy?
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
I do find it odd though, that these supposedly bright, genius types never propose interfering with MALE fertility. Considering how much more accessible male genitalia are, surely they should be talking about compulsory vasectomy?
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
Perhaps mass compulsory contraception of teenage girls as advised by the new SPAD is the way to deliver for the Northern towns.
Idly curious - how would he actually propose to enforce it? Compulsory vasectomies? Random checks of women to see if they had contraceptive devices fitted? He appears to go futher than the Chinese attempted with their one-child policy, but I'm sure they'd be interested in the technology, perhaps in trade for assistance with HS2?
To be honest Nick it is claptrap
Is it wrong to be mildly amused by the story's byline of John Johnston: one letter away from the false name given by Guy Fawkes? Where it is also problematic though is the same argument can be used from the other end, to oppose free contraception or abortion as being aimed limit some minority group or other.
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
For example, what excuse does Johnson have for not embarking in a crash programme of flood defences, built at the speed of a Chinese hospital, now that money is no object?
Or are the Conservatives only interested in public spending that serves the needs of political and business elites?
I see you answered your own question
If that ship discussed on yesterday's thread does blow up, London might need new flood defences as a tidal wave is sent up the Thames. The timescale might tax even the Chinese government, though.
And Joseph became one of the chief architects of Thatcherism and a major influence on Thatcher during her PMship. Should we look forward to BJism or would that be too much of a step into defined, coherent policy?
I appreciate that we can't comment on anything that Burgon says because to do so would be to give rise to accusations of "bullying". There's no need to do so however, as his tweets speak for themselves.
Nonetheless, a word of warning about repeating Burgon's tweets. Their potency seems to be increasing. At some stage, a Burgon comment could cause mass fatalities as a result of rolling about in uncontrollable laughter following exposure, a Monty Python "killer joke" that becomes a pandemic in the age of the internet. Those almost in their 80s with a history of heart attacks must be considered especially vulnerable.
Genuinely amusing post - albeit slightly bullying - but I do want to probe a little on the content.
He says that Jeremy Corbyn if he wishes can stay active and relevant in politics for many years. And he points out that Bernie Sanders is both older than Jeremy and has at least a puncher's chance of POTUS this year.
Now, in all po-faced seriousness, what is so ludicrous about either of those eminently reasonable statements of opinion from Richard Burgon?
I would suggest that the answer is absolutely nothing. And thus, the humour is derived not from what is said but who has said it. Bit like with Tommy Cooper.
I know why people say this, and many do, but as a unionist I find it worrying that how many cannot put aside party political issues for the sake of a wider issue like support for the union. Worrying too in that they do have reason for that stance, as they were and would likely continue to be punished if they did. I mean, most people accept that there are issues, as British people or Europeans or whatever, that mean its ok to work with people of other groups in support of the thing they do agree on. https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1228590234402775040
Campaigning with the Tories was a massive, massive, massive mistake for Labour in Scotland.
Just gigantic. .
What would have been the alternative?
Not building an entire campaign infrastructure that A) put ardent Unionist Labour operatives in direct contact with The Unionist party gave the the operatives of the tiny marginalised party a gigantic canvassing advantage of telling them exactly where their best possible targets where. C) poisoned their image amongst the anyone-but-the-Tory voter base that made up a massive percentage of their voters by clapping and applauding the actions of Tories.
It was a series of devastating own goals based on listening to the hardest core BritNats in the Lab leadership and a total denial that a huge percentage of Labour voters were in favour of Independence.
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
I see PB favourite Richard Burgon has crashed the clown car again....I won't sign the Jewish board of deputies pledge card, because I don't believe the pledge which simply says to engage with main Jewish groups.
His objection is he takes that to mean he isn't allowed to speak to what he calls fringe Jewish groups.
When challenged by Sophie Ridge on where does it say this, no answer, just banging on about what about gay Jews.
Combining the two themes, new JR-sceptic Attorney General has been yellow-carded for using antisemitic tropes in accusing Labour of cultural marxism.
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
9B Euro a year from the budget of 27 countries is chickenfeed. UK alone is handing them 39B GBP just to leave. No doubt they will all want someone else to pay it but it is chump change.
Interesting to note that a massive advertising blitz just landed in the Middle East, from the Department for International Trade. It’s everywhere over the weekend, from newspapers to literal elevator pitches.
This is the consequence of Barnier's failure to offer the UK something that amounted to less than national humiliation following the 2016 vote. Admittedly, such is the opaque state of EU accountability that member states weren't the prime movers in that, but nonetheless I have little sympathy given what they put us through. They went all in and came out with nothing.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
Great to hear it (we?) have a positive impact in tough times. Go PB!
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
9B Euro a year from the budget of 27 countries is chickenfeed. UK alone is handing them 39B GBP just to leave. No doubt they will all want someone else to pay it but it is chump change.
I bet they will in the end decide what we actually need is an even more expanded budget....because that seems the EU big brass solution to every problem.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
I'm very sorry to hear about the depression (I've seen it at close hand and know how debilitating it can be) but delighted that the forum is helping - I think that any interest that takes one out of oneself is helpful in that situation. In general, I'e always found that if one part of one's life is interesting and pleasant, it's possible to use that to readjust one's perspective on the rest of life - so long as not everything is bad, one can climb back. Good luck, but do get help as well - nowadays, nearly everyone is sympathetic and understanding.
I knew this was Cyclefree before I got to the bottom by the length 😉
Think I need a coffee before I tackle this one..
.
Three points:
1. Many human rights cases are brought by people who are not criminals but by the forgotten and unloved, such as the case being brought by those with learning disabilities who are treated appallingly. They do not get much attention. So it is easy for you to say “oh the public is fed up with criminals taking the piss”. The reality is that the majority are not criminals taking the piss but people who are desperate and resorting to the courts because it is their last resort.
2. Even criminals should have resort to the law. This may be unpopular but in a civilised society it is essential. Now there are certainly improvements which can be made in stopping endless hopeless appeals etc but the reason I quoted the figures for 2018 is to show that the overwhelming majority of claims for JR are turned down. Hence my question as to whether there is a real problem here.
2. The public has lost trust in the police and the criminal justice system. See here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/failing-police-rumbled-by-weary-public-7lwvxrdr6. But that is as a result of prolonged and significant under-investment in and cuts to all aspects of the criminal justice system: police, courts, legal aid, forensic services, prisons, probation services etc. One recent example: an incident of alleged GBH in October 2017 is not going to go to trial until spring 2021.
Address these issues and the issues I have identified in relation to the police (see here -https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/j) and you would do far more to improve our justice system and start the process of restoring trust than attacking the ability of the citizen to hold the government to account via judicial review.
I think there’s very little sympathy with the police, who have for years appeared to prioritise dealing with Twitter spats and speed cameras, over gang violence and moped-riding muggers.
I agree that even criminals are entitled to due process, that’s a fundamental concept of law, but the current system is seen by many as a pisstake - with appeal after publically-funded baseless appeal, designed only to prevent the outcome rather than advance the course of justice.
Why on Earth should foreign criminals not be deported straight from prison, and make their case from abroad to be allowed back?
A thought: the apparently dreadful mess we've into got over the 'Windrush generation' and their descendants.Many people born here, and whose parents etc don't have passports might well have difficulty in 'proving' their British nationality.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
Gallowgate, Hope you can get through this, many people are very shallow and do not want to hear or do not really listen to what you are saying. Hopefully you can find someone that can really listen to your issues and good that you get some respite on here. Best wishes.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
Good luck with it. Having come through a fairly lengthy period of depression, what I found most helpful was to identify the activities and stimuli that while they wouldn't necessarily make me feel happy, would impart some kind of peace and serenity to my mind - would quell the turmoil to an extent. In my case, that actually involved listening to a lot of J.S.Bach, among other things! Obviously medication can be important too, but I think it's important not to rely on it, but to try and secure some kind of mental equilibrium when you can. Easier said than done, and I really wish you well.
This is the consequence of Barnier's failure to offer the UK something that amounted to less than national humiliation following the 2016 vote. Admittedly, such is the opaque state of EU accountability that member states weren't the prime movers in that, but nonetheless I have little sympathy given what they put us through. They went all in and came out with nothing.
LOL, UK will be worrying about several times that number on its lonesome , for EU it is chickenfeed. At some point you halfwits will realise that you do not actually rule world, are not a great superpower and will be back grovelling to rejoin. You will be begging Scotland to support you and get you fast tracked rather than you being at the back of the queue behind Albania and Turkey.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
My family have a history of anxiety and depression and we are currently experiencing some serious issues in mental health. I think your comments today in an open forum show courage and I would urge you to express these concerns to your doctor and medical advisors. Finding the appropriate medication can be a long process but it is essential to regaining a quality of life, together with counselling and I accept many do not understand the trauma of depression and anxiety in our communities
I wish you all the best in your new exciting project and hope you can receive wise and informed help in overcoming your issues. Be patient, positive, and kind to yourself
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
You are right; people in general often don't know how to deal with friends 'opening up'. I'm very glad to read that doing it here, under a pseudonym, in helpful. Best of luck!
2. The public has lost trust in the police and the criminal justice system. See here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/failing-police-rumbled-by-weary-public-7lwvxrdr6. But that is as a result of prolonged and significant under-investment in and cuts to all aspects of the criminal justice system: police, courts, legal aid, forensic services, prisons, probation services etc. One recent example: an incident of alleged GBH in October 2017 is not going to go to trial until spring 2021.
Address these issues and the issues I have identified in relation to the police (see here -https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/j) and you would do far more to improve our justice system and start the process of restoring trust than attacking the ability of the citizen to hold the government to account via judicial review.
I think there’s very little sympathy with the police, who have for years appeared to prioritise dealing with Twitter spats and speed cameras, over gang violence and moped-riding muggers.
I agree that even criminals are entitled to due process, that’s a fundamental concept of law, but the current system is seen by many as a pisstake - with appeal after publically-funded baseless appeal, designed only to prevent the outcome rather than advance the course of justice.
Why on Earth should foreign criminals not be deported straight from prison, and make their case from abroad to be allowed back?
A thought: the apparently dreadful mess we've into got over the 'Windrush generation' and their descendants.Many people born here, and whose parents etc don't have passports might well have difficulty in 'proving' their British nationality.
If they were born here there should be such records, notwithstanding that there’s a load of record-keeping issues. We definitely shouldn’t be deporting people who have never been issued a passport by the country to which we wish to deport them.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
I value your contributions here. Life can be hard. You’re not alone. Take care.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
I'm curious as to why Yvette Cooper is seen as an answer to Labour's problems.
She's had two decades in the top tier of Labour politics and I can't think of anything which she has thought or done which has been impressive.
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
9B Euro a year from the budget of 27 countries is chickenfeed. UK alone is handing them 39B GBP just to leave. No doubt they will all want someone else to pay it but it is chump change.
It's more than that though Malcolm. What the Frugals want to achieve is to hold the line at 1% of EU GDP rather than 1.1% . Over that period that amounts to roughly twice the missing UK contribution. The Commission, inevitably, want to break through the 1% ceiling. Once they do further increases become harder to resist. As usual, its a power grab.
How much do you think an independent Scotland would be asked to put into the pot?
Very best wishes getting on top of that. Everyone's different of course but that it's good to talk about it (rather than not) is I believe pretty much universally accepted. But it is often not easy to do so. So that was post of the day.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
You are right; people in general often don't know how to deal with friends 'opening up'. I'm very glad to read that doing it here, under a pseudonym, in helpful. Best of luck!
Good luck. Don't forget that any resources supplied by your university or student union are available to mature students too; I'd imagine they deal with this sort of thing all the time; help is not just for 18-year-olds.
I appreciate that we can't comment on anything that Burgon says because to do so would be to give rise to accusations of "bullying". There's no need to do so however, as his tweets speak for themselves.
Nonetheless, a word of warning about repeating Burgon's tweets. Their potency seems to be increasing. At some stage, a Burgon comment could cause mass fatalities as a result of rolling about in uncontrollable laughter following exposure, a Monty Python "killer joke" that becomes a pandemic in the age of the internet. Those almost in their 80s with a history of heart attacks must be considered especially vulnerable.
Genuinely amusing post - albeit slightly bullying - but I do want to probe a little on the content.
He says that Jeremy Corbyn if he wishes can stay active and relevant in politics for many years. And he points out that Bernie Sanders is both older than Jeremy and has at least a puncher's chance of POTUS this year.
Now, in all po-faced seriousness, what is so ludicrous about either of those eminently reasonable statements of opinion from Richard Burgon?
I would suggest that the answer is absolutely nothing. And thus, the humour is derived not from what is said but who has said it. Bit like with Tommy Cooper.
Fair cop?
No, what I find ludicrous about Burgon is that absolute certainty with which he makes these sort of pronouncements, and this is a further example. It is a typical weakness amongst the far left - always dealing in absolutes, never acknowledging any need to qualify an argument. Burgon is probably the worst culprit of that, and it is what exposes Burgon in particular to ridicule.
His tweet states "can if he wishes" not "might be able to". In reality, a lot depends on Corbyn's health and not all politicians display the political longevity of Sanders et al. Likewise, it's not that Sanders might win, it's the implied certainty that he is going to ("Has a big political career ahead" not "might have"). And even then, the prospect of Sanders being able to continue until he's 83 might seem a bit moot.
Everyone who doesn’t like the government is determined to make the advisor the story, as happened with the likes of Alistair Campbell and Andy Coulson. They doubleplus hate him for his role in the Vote Leave campaign.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
Ordinary people are dealing with the storms, flooding and many other things in their lives and I doubt they even know who Cummings is to be honest
Your party is giving shelter to Cummings and Sabisky and whoever else strikes Cumming's fancy. Unelected appointees firing senior politicians and their staff and ordering the PM around? If Sabisky is an indicator of what is to come (eugenics FFS!!) then a bit less complacency might be in order.
‘Fighting like ferrets in a bag’ as EU tries to plug Brexit cash hole
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
9B Euro a year from the budget of 27 countries is chickenfeed. UK alone is handing them 39B GBP just to leave. No doubt they will all want someone else to pay it but it is chump change.
It's more than that though Malcolm. What the Frugals want to achieve is to hold the line at 1% of EU GDP rather than 1.1% . Over that period that amounts to roughly twice the missing UK contribution. The Commission, inevitably, want to break through the 1% ceiling. Once they do further increases become harder to resist. As usual, its a power grab.
How much do you think an independent Scotland would be asked to put into the pot?
David, given the state London has us in I think we would be getting food parcels for a while. Even once sorted out it would be significantly less than what we have to pay to London at present and that for stuff we do not want.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
I'm curious as to why Yvette Cooper is seen as an answer to Labour's problems.
She's had two decades in the top tier of Labour politics and I can't think of anything which she has thought or done which has been impressive.
So, less than an hour to the T20 decider in a series where both games have gone to the final ball with all results possible. I really can't wait. A good blast of Buttler at the top of the order is overdue.
Everyone who doesn’t like the government is determined to make the advisor the story, as happened with the likes of Alistair Campbell and Andy Coulson. They doubleplus hate him for his role in the Vote Leave campaign.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
In light of the tragic Caroline Flack affair and various similar events, I just wanted to make a personal and off-topic comment in order to get something off my chest. I apologise if this is the wrong outlet for this and clearly it has nothing to do with betting on politics so please feel free to ignore.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
You are right; people in general often don't know how to deal with friends 'opening up'. I'm very glad to read that doing it here, under a pseudonym, in helpful. Best of luck!
Good luck. Don't forget that any resources supplied by your university or student union are available to mature students too; I'd imagine they deal with this sort of thing all the time; help is not just for 18-year-olds.
This is not something I’d considered so thank you very much for that.
Thank you all for your kind thoughts and comments. It is very much appreciated.
But this was the point of Brexit. If we do not like Cummings we can just vote him out.
You all seem obsessed by Cummings but I doubt ordinary people give him a moments thought
G I am most surprised at Tories who spent years whining about EU telling us what to so are now so in love with an unelected twat like Cummings running the country. He sends out the big buffoon to mumble some rubbish every now and then but he is pulling all the strings, pretty pathetic.
Ordinary people are dealing with the storms, flooding and many other things in their lives and I doubt they even know who Cummings is to be honest
Your party is giving shelter to Cummings and Sabisky and whoever else strikes Cumming's fancy. Unelected appointees firing senior politicians and their staff and ordering the PM around? If Sabisky is an indicator of what is to come (eugenics FFS!!) then a bit less complacency might be in order.
I have already said Sabisky needs a P45 but Cummings has delivered Brexit and Boris and of course you dislike him with a passion, but I doubt it has any influence on ordinary people.
Boris will sink or swim on his delivery of his promises not on anything the political bubble get over excited about
Dan Hodges makes two references to House of Cards but wasn't it Sir Humphrey who disposed of a Cabinet Minister by spreading false rumours and then prompting Hacker to impose unacceptable terms?
Blimey. Starmer thinks his brexit policy was the right policy for the election
Given the constraints, no one is yet to volunteer a better alternative.
Get Brexit Done walked all over it
No one is disputing that, but that could never be the Labour policy.
It was in 2017...
No it wasn’t. 2017 was the “Labour negotiated Brexit” election.
Which was the same policy as in 2019, just with the 2nd ref pledge.
“Just with the second ref pledge.” - I’m sure that didn’t make any difference whatsoever.
And that was the fatal error in labour's brexit policy.
The fact Starmer cannot see it is amazing
There was no other option. Without it voters would have left for the Lib Dems in droves.
The fact you cannot see this is amazing.
Like they did in 2017?
The Lib Dems are all bark and no bite. How many Labour seats were at risk of falling to the Lib Dems - it was the Tories who took Labour seats not the Lib Dems.
Kind of makes the point. It was successful in protecting them from the resurgent LDs (who, remember, won the Euro elections in London). It helped them keep seats such as Sheffield Hallam, while protecting Canterbury etc from the Tories. Labour's defeat could have been much worse, were it not for the way in which Starmer was able to rein in the Corbyn crew's indifference to an issue that meant so much to so many Labour voters.
Could have been much worse than the worst shellacking since before WWII? I don't recall you predicting that before the election.
That was far from true of Labour's GB vote share - and in England the party's performance was little different to 1992.
But this was the point of Brexit. If we do not like Cummings we can just vote him out.
You all seem obsessed by Cummings but I doubt ordinary people give him a moments thought
G I am most surprised at Tories who spent years whining about EU telling us what to so are now so in love with an unelected twat like Cummings running the country. He sends out the big buffoon to mumble some rubbish every now and then but he is pulling all the strings, pretty pathetic.
I am more worried about a power cabal starting up under the cover of the Conservative Govt. It seems clear from his online writings that Cummings has an agenda all of his own and the current govt is merely a vehicle to let him achieve it.
The appointment of another "like mind" who has espoused views that would be political poison for any prospective MP (or actual MP) is another worrying sign.
Listening to Starmer I have no animosity towards him, unlike Corbyn, but he seems to think he can bring unity to the party by being all things to all people and simply provides bland responses to questions and he does seem to have a plodding and charisma free personality
The key for labour will be what happens if Starmer wins to appointments to his shadow cabinet. Is he going to exclude RLB and include Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn or is he going to favour the left and keep out the moderates.
Some seem to think Starmer is their answer to prayer and expect a rapid rise in popularity for the labour party.
I just do not know but irrespective of what happens in labour it will be up to Boris to come good on his promises, and quickly, otherwise Boris could find the pendulum swinging away from him. It is all about Boris this year
I'm curious as to why Yvette Cooper is seen as an answer to Labour's problems.
She's had two decades in the top tier of Labour politics and I can't think of anything which she has thought or done which has been impressive.
If Starmer excludes Long-Bailey, and I think he should for a whole host of reasons, it will cause some waves and as a consequence he will find it harder to bring in too many of Corbyn's harshest critics. If he's looking to unify the party, it would be hard to bring back those senior figures who declined from day one to serve under Corbyn, as opposed to resigning after 2016. Yvette Cooper was one of them.
Comments
Good governance is about trying to avoid procedural flaws - this is not some optional extra. Any process needs to be carried out properly and be seen to be so. It is the reason why we have rules about the conduct of trials, for instance.
Apparently Sabisky orders Boris around, which says very little for Boris's leadership....
But it looks good in the papers.....
The fact that the government is attacking it is evidence that it has not real interest in solving the real problems you have identified. This is about power - about the government wanting to grab more power from the public, from the people it is meant to serve.
Anyway am staring at Black Combe from my bed. The day is calm and clear after yesterday’s storms and I have a mumps-ridden daughter to attend to.
So until later ....
Remember that any vote lost to the Lib Dems is worth 1 vote bit any vote lost to the Tories is worth 2 votes. Plus the yellows are potential allies while the blues never are. The sane priority is to try to not lose votes to the Tories.
Nonetheless, a word of warning about repeating Burgon's tweets. Their potency seems to be increasing. At some stage, a Burgon comment could cause mass fatalities as a result of rolling about in uncontrollable laughter following exposure, a Monty Python "killer joke" that becomes a pandemic in the age of the internet. Those almost in their 80s with a history of heart attacks must be considered especially vulnerable.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/15/hs2-boris-johnson-london-birmingham-north
For example, what excuse does Johnson have for not embarking in a crash programme of flood defences, built at the speed of a Chinese hospital, now that money is no object?
Or are the Conservatives only interested in public spending that serves the needs of political and business elites?
His objection is he takes that to mean he isn't allowed to speak to what he calls fringe Jewish groups.
When challenged by Sophie Ridge on where does it say this, no answer, just banging on about what about gay Jews.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1994/dec/12/obituaries
If we had a more equal society, with better education, there'd probably be fewer under-age pregnancies. The UK has one of the highest rates in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_teenage_pregnancy
I think there’s very little sympathy with the police, who have for years appeared to prioritise dealing with Twitter spats and speed cameras, over gang violence and moped-riding muggers.
I agree that even criminals are entitled to due process, that’s a fundamental concept of law, but the current system is seen by many as a pisstake - with appeal after publically-funded baseless appeal, designed only to prevent the outcome rather than advance the course of justice.
Why on Earth should foreign criminals not be deported straight from prison, and make their case from abroad to be allowed back?
What was noticeable about those services was the fact that girls under 16 were very willing to attend and the staff were very supportive.
UK’s withdrawal has left £62bn hole in bloc’s purse for the next seven years
Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/16/stressed-heads-to-start-brussels-budget-talks-post-brexit
Crazy idea, how about cutting the budget?
Johnson-ism....
He says that Jeremy Corbyn if he wishes can stay active and relevant in politics for many years. And he points out that Bernie Sanders is both older than Jeremy and has at least a puncher's chance of POTUS this year.
Now, in all po-faced seriousness, what is so ludicrous about either of those eminently reasonable statements of opinion from Richard Burgon?
I would suggest that the answer is absolutely nothing. And thus, the humour is derived not from what is said but who has said it. Bit like with Tommy Cooper.
Fair cop?
A) put ardent Unionist Labour operatives in direct contact with The Unionist party
C) poisoned their image amongst the anyone-but-the-Tory voter base that made up a massive percentage of their voters by clapping and applauding the actions of Tories.
It was a series of devastating own goals based on listening to the hardest core BritNats in the Lab leadership and a total denial that a huge percentage of Labour voters were in favour of Independence.
Regardless, I too am currently going through quite a deep period of depression and it’s been quite the struggle. Especially when the big changes currently ongoing in my life should be happy and exciting (they are happy and exciting, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference). It’s very hard to speak to people about such things, even people who are close. I’m not sure why. When you try and open up, its almost like people don’t know how to deal with it.
I just wanted to say that I spend a significant amount of “down time” here, especially during such times. The time I spend reading all your (mostly) informative posts outside (sometimes far outside) of my “bubble” is a very enjoyable change of perspective (not only on politics but also about life) and I feel it can only be a good thing to be exposed to such things. I really appreciate this resource and all your contributions to it.
https://www.great.gov.uk/international/?lang=en-gb
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/16/stressed-heads-to-start-brussels-budget-talks-post-brexit
This is the consequence of Barnier's failure to offer the UK something that amounted to less than national humiliation following the 2016 vote. Admittedly, such is the opaque state of EU accountability that member states weren't the prime movers in that, but nonetheless I have little sympathy given what they put us through. They went all in and came out with nothing.
You will be begging Scotland to support you and get you fast tracked rather than you being at the back of the queue behind Albania and Turkey.
I wish you all the best in your new exciting project and hope you can receive wise and informed help in overcoming your issues. Be patient, positive, and kind to yourself
All the very best
Best of luck!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-8007849/DAN-HODGES-Sajid-Javid-doomed-day-said-hed-vote-Remain-four-years-ago.html
She's had two decades in the top tier of Labour politics and I can't think of anything which she has thought or done which has been impressive.
How much do you think an independent Scotland would be asked to put into the pot?
Very best wishes getting on top of that. Everyone's different of course but that it's good to talk about it (rather than not) is I believe pretty much universally accepted. But it is often not easy to do so. So that was post of the day.
Ordinary people are dealing with the storms, flooding and many other things in their lives and I doubt they even know who Cummings is to be honest
His tweet states "can if he wishes" not "might be able to". In reality, a lot depends on Corbyn's health and not all politicians display the political longevity of Sanders et al. Likewise, it's not that Sanders might win, it's the implied certainty that he is going to ("Has a big political career ahead" not "might have"). And even then, the prospect of Sanders being able to continue until he's 83 might seem a bit moot.
Mr Cummings still reports to the PM, Johnson is the man in charge and accountable for the actions of his advisors. It’s the PM’s intention to drag the way government works into the 21st century, and he alone will stand or fall on its successes and failures.
Thank you all for your kind thoughts and comments. It is very much appreciated.
Boris will sink or swim on his delivery of his promises not on anything the political bubble get over excited about
The appointment of another "like mind" who has espoused views that would be political poison for any prospective MP (or actual MP) is another worrying sign.