Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Imperial model had an update on various effects, it also spits out raw numbers now. Here's current estimates on Rt:
Austria 0.79 Belgium 1.09 Denmark 0.71 France 0.89 Germany 0.78 Greece 0.38 Italy 0.64 Netherlands 0.62 Norway 0.71 Portugal 0.72 Spain 0.69 Sweden 1.27 Switzerland 0.67 United_Kingdom 0.68
So much of a muchness for the various forms of lockdown bar Greece (low pop density and spread across hundreds of islands) and Belgium for some unknown reason.
Sweden not that far from 1 so there probably is a middle ground where 0.8<r<1 with some restrictions eased. Especially if we can up the testing, tracing and isolating capacity.
Let’s pause for a moment and take the government’s line at face value and that Cummings has a rare if not unique ability to translate complex scientific points into a form non-experts can understand. And that he is somehow better at this than the CMO and CSO whose job that actually is.
The information flow probably goes both ways. Even if DC only understood the politics, his presence may well be crucial.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Well, there was the Rump Parliament's actions in proceeding on when passing an ordinance to try Charles I for high treason despite the Lords rejecting it, but I suspect the legality of that action is suspect
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
I think the Parliament Act is a bit of a red herring in this discussion - it in fact made it easier for parliament to pass acts, rather than restricting its ability. At some level the ability for a political body can never be fully constrained. Numerous examples in history of constitutions being overturned or ignored. Parliament could pass a law changing the way laws are enacted, but the only way to ensure a future parliament could never reverse the decision of a past one would be to prevent any further laws being passed at all.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Well, there was the Rump Parliament's actions in proceeding on when passing an ordinance to try Charles I for high treason despite the Lords rejecting it, but I suspect the legality of that action is suspect
And the Parliament after the restoration simply declaring the last decade or so was legally null and void.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Fun stuff
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
All seems a rather petty, distasteful affair.
It's certainly a fair question to Sir Keir, if it's reasonable that his head of complaints should remain in post while being sued for libel?
The FTPA is but an ugly wart on a body politic that is covered in many ugly warts. The UK as currently defined doesn't work any more - right back to the West Lothian Question that has been obvious. We need a new consitution alright, but for me one that goes a lot further: A federal UK with full devolved powers to the national parliaments Autonomous regional government Democratic local government- and end to 80 year rule of one party or another Fully proportional voting systems
As a start. How long the rump UK federal parliament sits for, how many members it has etc we can decide as part of the package
Agree with some of that but if we had PR that means the LDs would have determined who formed the government for every general election for tye last few decades bar 2015 when UKIP woild have held the balance of power
But it is fair that a government represents at least 50% of the votes. The argument about Kingmaker is a red herring. If the Conservative and Labour governments weer able to find common ground they wouold be abe to form a coalition government.
And, of course, both votes cast and parties themselves would be hugely different. Both of the Big Two are effective coalitions already; PR would give them the opportunity to run their own wings independently. No more need to second-guess what the electorate are after (“they want Cameronism rather than the ERG, or mainstream Conservatism”, “Only Blairism can work from the left”, or whatever). Odds are that we’d often have coalitions of former Tory parties or of former Labour parties, but with their makeup in power chosen by the public rather than party grandees.
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
Surely that cannot be true? If so you could bind successor parliaments pretty easily.
I can perfectly well see Trump making an argument. "Postal voting is crooked, no wonder the Democrats want it. In-person voting right now isn't safe - looking at all the cases that have arisen from folk standing in line for the Wisconsin primary. We wanna have an election real soon, but it's gotta be safe."
It appears to be impossible, as Congress has to do it. Emergency powers, waved through by a complaisant Supreme Court? Is there a way?
In theory Congress could change the date of the election, but it would take a constitutional amendment for the President’s term of office to be extended past Jan 20th 2021.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Well, there was the Rump Parliament's actions in proceeding on when passing an ordinance to try Charles I for high treason despite the Lords rejecting it, but I suspect the legality of that action is suspect
And the Parliament after the restoration simply declaring the last decade or so was legally null and void.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
I think the Parliament Act is a bit of a red herring in this discussion - it in fact made it easier for parliament to pass acts, rather than restricting its ability. At some level the ability for a political body can never be fully constrained. Numerous examples in history of constitutions being overturned or ignored. Parliament could pass a law changing the way laws are enacted, but the only way to ensure a future parliament could never reverse the decision of a past one would be to prevent any further laws being passed at all.
I respectably think you’re missing the point. The Parliament Act discussion is merely to show that Parliament has the ability to change the procedures of what makes a statute valid. That is the only important thing here.
Therefore if Parliament passes a statute with a bog-standard simple majority, as per now, that requires ALL future bills to require a super-majority to pass, then a future Parliament would need to pass a repeal bill using those new procedures, i.e. it would need a super-majority to become a valid statute to change the procedures.
This is the point. Parliament CAN bind future Parliaments, at least in a procedural sense, if it wants. It just chooses not to.
It is therefore theoretically possible for us to entrench legislation.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Well, there was the Rump Parliament's actions in proceeding on when passing an ordinance to try Charles I for high treason despite the Lords rejecting it, but I suspect the legality of that action is suspect
And the Parliament after the restoration simply declaring the last decade or so was legally null and void.
As Charles II's 36 year reign (1649-1685) shows.
I'm not even sure what I meant by restoration there, my apologies.
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Fun stuff
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
All seems a rather petty, distasteful affair.
It's certainly a fair question to Sir Kier, if it's reasonable that his head of complaints should remain in post while being sued for libel?
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
Surely that cannot be true? If so you could bind successor parliaments pretty easily.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Well, there was the Rump Parliament's actions in proceeding on when passing an ordinance to try Charles I for high treason despite the Lords rejecting it, but I suspect the legality of that action is suspect
And the Parliament after the restoration simply declaring the last decade or so was legally null and void.
As Charles II's 36 year reign (1649-1685) shows.
I'm not even sure what I meant by restoration there, my apologies.
Not sure what you're apologising for old chap. I was just agreeing with you - restored to authority, if not restored legally to the throne, given God appointed him legally king of course!
Anyway, time to enjoy the sun. Good tidings to all.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
I think the Parliament Act is a bit of a red herring in this discussion - it in fact made it easier for parliament to pass acts, rather than restricting its ability. At some level the ability for a political body can never be fully constrained. Numerous examples in history of constitutions being overturned or ignored. Parliament could pass a law changing the way laws are enacted, but the only way to ensure a future parliament could never reverse the decision of a past one would be to prevent any further laws being passed at all.
I respectably think you’re missing the point. The Parliament Act discussion is merely to show that Parliament has the ability to change the procedures of what makes a statute valid. That is the only important thing here.
Therefore if Parliament passes a statute with a bog-standard simple majority, as per now, that requires ALL future bills to require a super-majority to pass, then a future Parliament would need to pass a repeal bill using those new procedures, i.e. it would need a super-majority to become a valid statute to change the procedures.
This is the point. Parliament CAN bind future Parliaments, at least in a procedural sense, if it wants. It just chooses not to.
It is therefore theoretically possible for us to entrench legislation.
But it isn't bound as the procedures can be changed again, although the threshold may be slightly different. I am arguing it is impossible to truly bind a future parliament, as that would require removing the ability of parliament to legislate.
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Fun stuff
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
All seems a rather petty, distasteful affair.
It's certainly a fair question to Sir Kier, if it's reasonable that his head of complaints should remain in post while being sued for libel?
If Parliament passed an Act that required ALL future bills to go through a specific procedure, the repeal bill would have to go through those new procedures to be valid.
Surely that cannot be true? If so you could bind successor parliaments pretty easily.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
That used to be the case, but now supreme law of the land are Dominic Cummings blogposts and leaks. I read it in [insert media of choice].
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
I think the Parliament Act is a bit of a red herring in this discussion - it in fact made it easier for parliament to pass acts, rather than restricting its ability. At some level the ability for a political body can never be fully constrained. Numerous examples in history of constitutions being overturned or ignored. Parliament could pass a law changing the way laws are enacted, but the only way to ensure a future parliament could never reverse the decision of a past one would be to prevent any further laws being passed at all.
I respectably think you’re missing the point. The Parliament Act discussion is merely to show that Parliament has the ability to change the procedures of what makes a statute valid. That is the only important thing here.
Therefore if Parliament passes a statute with a bog-standard simple majority, as per now, that requires ALL future bills to require a super-majority to pass, then a future Parliament would need to pass a repeal bill using those new procedures, i.e. it would need a super-majority to become a valid statute to change the procedures.
This is the point. Parliament CAN bind future Parliaments, at least in a procedural sense, if it wants. It just chooses not to.
It is therefore theoretically possible for us to entrench legislation.
But it isn't bound as the procedures can be changed again, although the threshold may be slightly different. I am arguing it is impossible to truly bind a future parliament, as that would require removing the ability of parliament to legislate.
As you say, no political system is truly bound, it merely puts higher barriers in place to prevent “easy” change in certain areas. Using the terminology “bind future Parliaments” I mean its possible for a present Parliament to put barriers in place to “bind” future Parliaments.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
Well, there was the Rump Parliament's actions in proceeding on when passing an ordinance to try Charles I for high treason despite the Lords rejecting it, but I suspect the legality of that action is suspect
And the Parliament after the restoration simply declaring the last decade or so was legally null and void.
As Charles II's 36 year reign (1649-1685) shows.
I'm not even sure what I meant by restoration there, my apologies.
Not sure what you're apologising for old chap. I was just agreeing with you - restored to authority, if not restored legally to the throne, given God appointed him legally king of course!
Anyway, time to enjoy the sun. Good tidings to all.
Just joking around about the legal fiction of his uninterrupted reign.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
I think the Parliament Act is a bit of a red herring in this discussion - it in fact made it easier for parliament to pass acts, rather than restricting its ability. At some level the ability for a political body can never be fully constrained. Numerous examples in history of constitutions being overturned or ignored. Parliament could pass a law changing the way laws are enacted, but the only way to ensure a future parliament could never reverse the decision of a past one would be to prevent any further laws being passed at all.
I respectably think you’re missing the point. The Parliament Act discussion is merely to show that Parliament has the ability to change the procedures of what makes a statute valid. That is the only important thing here.
Therefore if Parliament passes a statute with a bog-standard simple majority, as per now, that requires ALL future bills to require a super-majority to pass, then a future Parliament would need to pass a repeal bill using those new procedures, i.e. it would need a super-majority to become a valid statute to change the procedures.
This is the point. Parliament CAN bind future Parliaments, at least in a procedural sense, if it wants. It just chooses not to.
It is therefore theoretically possible for us to entrench legislation.
But it isn't bound as the procedures can be changed again, although the threshold may be slightly different. I am arguing it is impossible to truly bind a future parliament, as that would require removing the ability of parliament to legislate.
As you say, no political system is truly bound, it merely puts higher barriers in place to prevent “easy” change in certain areas. Using the terminology “bind future Parliaments” I mean its possible for a present Parliament to put barriers in place to “bind” future Parliaments.
OK, I think our disagreement has stemmed from a confusion of the term bind. Good times.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Let me rephrase my argument. Until the Parliament Acts, for an Act of Parliament to valid as the supreme law of the land it had to pass both the Commons, the Lords, and receive royal assent. As a result of the Parliament Act, the rules were changed. An Act of Parliament could be valid even if it did not pass the Lords. In fact the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 was challenged, with the argument was that the fact the Parliament Act 1949 was used made the statute invalid. (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf) Spoiler: the challenge failed.
Parliament could therefore pass a law, using existing procedures, that CHANGED the procedure to pass any new bills. Any repeal would subsequently have to go through these NEW procedures. These new procedures could require a super majority.
Except that's not true. Acts are still passed in the old fashioned way. In fact, if it is passed via the new procedure, the preamble is notably different.
Parliament can now pass an Bill without the Lords approval. Before the Parliament Acts that was not the case.
I think the Parliament Act is a bit of a red herring in this discussion - it in fact made it easier for parliament to pass acts, rather than restricting its ability. At some level the ability for a political body can never be fully constrained. Numerous examples in history of constitutions being overturned or ignored. Parliament could pass a law changing the way laws are enacted, but the only way to ensure a future parliament could never reverse the decision of a past one would be to prevent any further laws being passed at all.
I respectably think you’re missing the point. The Parliament Act discussion is merely to show that Parliament has the ability to change the procedures of what makes a statute valid. That is the only important thing here.
Therefore if Parliament passes a statute with a bog-standard simple majority, as per now, that requires ALL future bills to require a super-majority to pass, then a future Parliament would need to pass a repeal bill using those new procedures, i.e. it would need a super-majority to become a valid statute to change the procedures.
This is the point. Parliament CAN bind future Parliaments, at least in a procedural sense, if it wants. It just chooses not to.
It is therefore theoretically possible for us to entrench legislation.
But it isn't bound as the procedures can be changed again, although the threshold may be slightly different. I am arguing it is impossible to truly bind a future parliament, as that would require removing the ability of parliament to legislate.
What about examples where parliament has permanently given up its sovereignty?
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Fun stuff
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
All seems a rather petty, distasteful affair.
It's certainly a fair question to Sir Kier, if it's reasonable that his head of complaints should remain in post while being sued for libel?
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
But she would need to give royal assent to make that bill an act! I suppose you could use the barrel of a gun as leverage, like in tsarist Russia.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
A slightly different thought, I know referenda are not popular with the big wigs at the moment, but surely that is the more practical device to tie a successor parliament.
If we really wanted to codify the constitution, would that not be the best route?
You actually have the physical bridge in stock, or a friend of a friend of a colleague of the manager at the bridge factory in China reckons he can get you one next month, if you pay 5x the usual price up front?
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
Whoever is responsible for sending people who have had covid to care homes does need vilifying and if deaths resulted manslaughter charges might be appropriate.
Whether the people responsible were the government, NHS bureaucrats or doctors should be revealed.
So whats the argument about? Is there any evidence that Cummings 'doctored' or misrepresented, or unduly influenced any meetings?
No. Only that he was present, and if you accept that the the government should be privvy to all the information, and all the arguments presented, then thats a very good thing.
it does blur the politicians/scientists distinction, making it harder for government to say "We are acting purely in line with the recommendations of independent scientists." That may not be in the Government's interest.
And answered...
We don't have any proof that Cumming's didn't kill King Jong Un either.
That was the Queen Mother. You never bought this whole "she died" thing did you?
The Queen Mother killed Kim Jong Un? More up the DofE's street isnt it...
Don't anyone tell the Daily Express....
It's because he was working on a cure for arthritis...
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
In summary, your tweets will be treated for libel law purposes as freestanding, see para 28. Tweet, and especially sub-tweet, with that in mind.
Fun stuff
The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant's followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant's followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader's timeline
I will not spend time trying to decipher the "evidence" that the Claimant has relied upon. I doubt that it provides any real evidence, or any evidence of any value. If there exists a category of reader who – submerged in the lexicon of Twitter – understands the word "engage" in some sort of Twitter-specific way, the meaning that s/he would understand is not materially different from the natural and ordinary meaning of the word as it appeared in the Tweet
All seems a rather petty, distasteful affair.
It's certainly a fair question to Sir Kier, if it's reasonable that his head of complaints should remain in post while being sued for libel?
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
I have a feeling that the government started out thinking "let's go balls out for herd immunity, and if that is tough on the elderly, tough" and then when it resiled from that decision privately thought the very elderly were still expendable, and that in the complete meltdown of the hospitals no one would focus very much on the care homes (as happened in Italy). And they thought we would be desperate to free up hospital beds even if that meant sending infectious patients back to care homes. Their problem was that lockdown was more effective than it was expected to be, so we had time to focus on the care homes.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
I Tony Blair am King for life, and only a 100% vote in Parliament can change this.
I mean, yes, that’s the nature of our political system. That’s the danger of not having a consensus-built codified constitution to begin with. Although perhaps the Queen would refuse to give royal assent in such circumstances.
Pass a law to make unlawful for her to refuse royal assent
Which however can't become law until she, er, gives royal assent.....
I don’t think that would be a practical issue. She would give assent based on constitutional convention. I agree that she could theoretically withhold, it but the consequences of doing so would be far more catastrophic for the monarchy than assenting.
Re English regions, if you set lower and upper limits at say 2 million and 5 million, but also allowed exceptions such as Cornwall and Greater London....what might it look like?
This has been tried before: see North East Assembly. It’s not wanted.
It is perfectly legitimate for a government advisor to be present and even direct SAGE meetings.
But then the line has to be that we have listened to the advice and our policy is X. It can't be we're following the scientific advice. (What would the scientific advice be on smoking?)
Plus in all of this we (still) have Dom at the controls. Which matters because it's bad enough (but again perfectly legitimate) to have him running the show in normal times when there actually is a prime minister. But it's a lot worse when, as now, we don't have a prime minister.
If you want unbiased scientific advice you don't have a political fixer 'direct'ing the committe giving it.
Oh, so he's now 'directing' the entire committee?
Cummings must be quite a man brainwashing them. Maybe he's the Master.
And of course the other problem is perception. Even if Cummings is behaving impeccably at SAGE - if the truth is benign as per my first para - how can we know this. We can't.
But why would we, and why should we? Unless the entirety of government and government briefings was open and public, that would be case for any government, and any advisor/SPAD.
It ultimately boils down to 'we don't like this guy, and we don't like his influence', but his job is to advise, and therefore have influence on the PM, and that would be true for anyone.
Yes it's defensible - advisable even - on this basis.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
I think we have to determine whether we think the principle of a SPAD being present and participating or not is acceptable. If it is, then the fact he is 'not any old SPAD' is irrelevant as to whether it is ok. If it isn't, then him being 'not any old SPAD' is still irrelevant.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
To me it IS about Cummings because therein lies the specific risk that people are worried about (if they are worried). The risk is that the active participation of the second most powerful person in government - a virtual in loco PM who is known to be iconoclastic and forceful - will distort the deliberations and output of a supposedly impartial group of experts in the direction of what he and Johnson want to hear. As happened on Iraq with Campbell (in loco Blair) and the intelligence officials.
I assume meetings are similarly distorted when the PM is present?
they truly are. they have their faults (slow labour data etc.) but they are 100% reliable, independent and competent. They are one of the pillars of our civic society. I have *never* come across a suggestion they are political. they are even above the judiciary in my estimation.
they truly are. they have their faults (slow labour data etc.) but they are 100% reliable, independent and competent. They are one of the pillars of our civic society. I have *never* come across a suggestion they are political. they are even above the judiciary in my estimation.
Truly amazing that journalists only realised the ONS existed a mere week ago.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
Imperial model had an update on various effects, it also spits out raw numbers now. Here's current estimates on Rt:
Austria 0.79 Belgium 1.09 Denmark 0.71 France 0.89 Germany 0.78 Greece 0.38 Italy 0.64 Netherlands 0.62 Norway 0.71 Portugal 0.72 Spain 0.69 Sweden 1.27 Switzerland 0.67 United_Kingdom 0.68
That's very useful. I did guesstimate an Rt of between 1.3-1.5 for us during our period of Sweden-like restrictions but before lockdown (doubling rate seemed around 10 days, so 2 x incubation period, so Rt somewhere in the region of sqrt(2).
An Rt of 1.27 gives a herd immunity threshold of 21% infected. Which means that Stockholm (assuming the Rt is that level in Stockholm County as well) can give a useful live experiment for the true IFR of the disease.
If the IFR is 0.1%, then that's 1000 per million - if 100% get infected (which they won't; herd immunity kicks in). If herd immunity provides for c. 20% getting infected (let's give a range of 15%-30%), then an IFR of 0.1% gives a rough ceiling of deaths of 210 per million (range between 150-300 per million). (Stockholm is way over that already)
If the IFR is 0.2%, and Rt is 1.27 (ish), then we're looking at a ceiling of 420 per million (call it 300-600 per million). Stockholm is currently at 500 per million, so looking unlikely.
If the IFR is 0.3%, a ceiling of 630 per million (450-900 per million). Maybe possible.
If the IFR is 0.4%, ceiling is 840 per million (range 600-1200 per million).
An IFR of 0.5% is a ceiling of 1050 per million (750-1500 per million).
An IFR of 0.6% is a ceiling of 1260 per million (900-1800 per million).
(and so on). We'll see where Stockholm stabilises, which should give us a rough indication of the IFR.
However, if the restrictions are lowered, the ceiling shoots up (Rt increases - going to an Rt of 1.75 doubles that ceiling instantly; going to 2.7 (the lower bound of the estimated natural level) trebles it and going to 6 (the higher bound of the estimated natural level) quadruples it.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
You could be describing any government of the last fifty or a hundred years. Who was it broke the Northern Rock story, and which government was in power at the time?
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
A slightly different thought, I know referenda are not popular with the big wigs at the moment, but surely that is the more practical device to tie a successor parliament.
If we really wanted to codify the constitution, would that not be the best route?
Let's take all the money we would spend on codifying the constitution and spend it on the NHS. Or do you hate Great Ormond Street and want sick kiddies to die?
Worked in the AV referendum. Kind of on point: some think the ftpa was Cameron's most poisonous legacy, others brexit, but I think inventing the "let's spend it on the NHS" argument was the worst.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
Yes and we all know what "Downing St sources" means.
The media are not at fault for raising the issue and role of a political advisor at what is supposed to be an expert advisory group.
The pretence that government policy was being directed by science, rests on the integrity of that advice.
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
So exactly like every other government.
Politicians and political journalists are in a symbiotic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that the media need to facilitate it - they could stop sending their political journalists and instead send journalists with scientific and technical knowledge.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
I agree - the media should be going after the government hammer & tongs on care homes. Instead they splash process stories about someone many of the public have never heard of.
PPE is another area but I suspect the public are more willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to an extent as the government are clearly trying - but the care home situation is a disgrace.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
Yes and we all know what "Downing St sources" means.
The media are not at fault for raising the issue and role of a political advisor at what is supposed to be an expert advisory group.
The pretence that government policy was being directed by science, rests on the integrity of that advice.
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
Which of those categories is DD in?
Just part of the bubble
Sorry Scott, it is a non story to the people who matter, the public
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
A slightly different thought, I know referenda are not popular with the big wigs at the moment, but surely that is the more practical device to tie a successor parliament.
If we really wanted to codify the constitution, would that not be the best route?
Let's take all the money we would spend on codifying the constitution and spend it on the NHS. Or do you hate Great Ormond Street and want sick kiddies to die?
Worked in the AV referendum. Kind of on point: some think the ftpa was Cameron's most poisonous legacy, others brexit, but I think inventing the "let's spend it on the NHS" argument was the worst.
the media should be going after the government hammer & tongs on care homes. Instead they splash process stories about someone many of the public have never heard of.
You don't think the "complete scientific and independent committee, probably" story plays into the care home crisis?
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
Which of those categories is DD in?
Just part of the bubble
Sorry Scott, it is a non story to the people who matter, the public
If it is a non story, then why is it making all the running?
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have.
Replace "government" with "politicians" and I would agree with you, not least in the sense that they alone can do do something to rectify it (step one: shut down the BBC).
I don't know if you are aware of the campaign Guido has been doing for some time on the lobby system. I can see that might also lead to wider change.
Why wouldn’t it be true? Parliament has supremacy. Statutes are the supreme law of the land.
A slightly different thought, I know referenda are not popular with the big wigs at the moment, but surely that is the more practical device to tie a successor parliament.
If we really wanted to codify the constitution, would that not be the best route?
Let's take all the money we would spend on codifying the constitution and spend it on the NHS. Or do you hate Great Ormond Street and want sick kiddies to die?
Worked in the AV referendum. Kind of on point: some think the ftpa was Cameron's most poisonous legacy, others brexit, but I think inventing the "let's spend it on the NHS" argument was the worst.
It worked well for Cameron in 2016. Oh...
Exactly, and serve him bloody right. Because he adopted it in 2011.
The Cummings story is yet another perfect example of political geeks getting in a froth over someone the public will not have heard of or is of the slightest of interest
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
It depends where the critics are coming from. If its about winning elections you are spot on.
If its about good governance then the views of people who dont know who the 2nd most important figure in their own government is, are probably not the people whose views should be listened to.
Without knowing the details of his role within SAGE I cant come to any view on whether or not its good governance. Despite not voting for the govt they are here to stay and I wish them well, but there is surely room for feedback and criticism of the govt that doesnt meet the threshold of an election changer.
Never mind all this Westminster Bubble nonsense, what’s actually on the lips of the man on the street is whether St James’ Park can be extended on the current site, or whether we need to build a new stadium elsewhere.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
So exactly like every other government.
Politicians and political journalists are in a symbiotic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that the media need to facilitate it - they could stop sending their political journalists and instead send journalists with scientific and technical knowledge.
Huge props to the first MSM outlet to send a scientific journo in place of a Lobby hack to the daily presser.
The standout from last week was the intelligent questions from the lady representing a military publication, on the day when the defence chief attended.
There's got be a good case for government alternating the pressers, so that every other day has only scientists - with no minister leading.
The people obsessing about Cummings were the same people obsessing about the EU ventilator scheme which achieved nothing and wasn't needed.
Now there certainly are areas where the government is worthy of criticism but the frothers continually fail to see them blinded as they are in their derangement.
The Government may well end up being properly criticised - maybe even villified - for its position on care homes. I have said there looks to be a case to answer on this. They won't get a pass from me if so. But there is so much Gotcha!! bollocks around stuff that is just process, for a Government trying to find a way through the shifting sands of this pandemic. The same Brexit redux battle, just a different battlefield.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
The government has been entirely complicit in creating the media culture we have. It has briefed off the record, leaked stories and sought to embarrass its opponents by feeding angles to co-operative journalists on pliant publications. Even now different ministers are spinning different takes to different outlets about civil servants, other ministers, ending the lockdown and countless other subjects. What's more, the government has given the likes of Peston privileged access and inside scoops they have denied to others, thus feeding his ego and making him feel ever so important. The fact is that if you help to create a certain kind of culture don't be surprised that it is unhelpful when you don't want it to be.
So exactly like every other government.
Politicians and political journalists are in a symbiotic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that the media need to facilitate it - they could stop sending their political journalists and instead send journalists with scientific and technical knowledge.
Governments use the media, governments attack the media, no-one trusts journalists. It's an age old story.
The government could, of course, invite journalists with scientific and technical knowledge to its press conferences or give them the opportunity to interview ministers. It is possible to reach out to specialist publications. It chooses not to.
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
Which of those categories is DD in?
Just part of the bubble
Sorry Scott, it is a non story to the people who matter, the public
If it is a non story, then why is it making all the running?
The bubble talking to the bubble and everyone else gets on with their lives
Comments
Sweden not that far from 1 so there probably is a middle ground where 0.8<r<1 with some restrictions eased. Especially if we can up the testing, tracing and isolating capacity.
But Cummings is not any old SPAD. We all remember Alastair Campbell and his impact on "impartial" experts.
I don't know. Tricky one. It's probably OK. You'd need to be an insider to know.
That he is more and, to many, worse than the others is a legitimate concern, but I think it is separate to this issue and there is too much blending of the concern about Cummings' influence and his position generally, and whether despite not liking that influence and position, his participation in this context was reasonable.
Both of the Big Two are effective coalitions already; PR would give them the opportunity to run their own wings independently. No more need to second-guess what the electorate are after (“they want Cameronism rather than the ERG, or mainstream Conservatism”, “Only Blairism can work from the left”, or whatever).
Odds are that we’d often have coalitions of former Tory parties or of former Labour parties, but with their makeup in power chosen by the public rather than party grandees.
But it would be up to the electorate to choose.
Have a BBC link instead. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52326166
Therefore if Parliament passes a statute with a bog-standard simple majority, as per now, that requires ALL future bills to require a super-majority to pass, then a future Parliament would need to pass a repeal bill using those new procedures, i.e. it would need a super-majority to become a valid statute to change the procedures.
This is the point. Parliament CAN bind future Parliaments, at least in a procedural sense, if it wants. It just chooses not to.
It is therefore theoretically possible for us to entrench legislation.
Rhymes with "Keiro to zero" is how I remember it.
Anyway, time to enjoy the sun. Good tidings to all.
The media have been - and continue to be - woeful, taking the lead from their ill-informed and egotistical political correspondents, instead of having the courage to replace them with their science correspondents. This situation has been apparent for six? seven? weeks now. The sm eold faces being put front and centre of their Covid coverage suggests they feel the science isn't sexy enough to keep an audience. But they are losing not just audience, but any lingering respect for their brand.
I'll get me coat.
If we really wanted to codify the constitution, would that not be the best route?
Whether the people responsible were the government, NHS bureaucrats or doctors should be revealed.
Brazil, Nigeria and Russia don't seem to be "bending the curve".
https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1253980131535794176?s=09
https://twitter.com/joshuagrubbsphd/status/1251912353559580678?s=21
https://twitter.com/HzBrandenburg/status/1253995693137637376?s=20
An Rt of 1.27 gives a herd immunity threshold of 21% infected. Which means that Stockholm (assuming the Rt is that level in Stockholm County as well) can give a useful live experiment for the true IFR of the disease.
If the IFR is 0.1%, then that's 1000 per million - if 100% get infected (which they won't; herd immunity kicks in). If herd immunity provides for c. 20% getting infected (let's give a range of 15%-30%), then an IFR of 0.1% gives a rough ceiling of deaths of 210 per million (range between 150-300 per million).
(Stockholm is way over that already)
If the IFR is 0.2%, and Rt is 1.27 (ish), then we're looking at a ceiling of 420 per million (call it 300-600 per million). Stockholm is currently at 500 per million, so looking unlikely.
If the IFR is 0.3%, a ceiling of 630 per million (450-900 per million). Maybe possible.
If the IFR is 0.4%, ceiling is 840 per million (range 600-1200 per million).
An IFR of 0.5% is a ceiling of 1050 per million (750-1500 per million).
An IFR of 0.6% is a ceiling of 1260 per million (900-1800 per million).
(and so on). We'll see where Stockholm stabilises, which should give us a rough indication of the IFR.
However, if the restrictions are lowered, the ceiling shoots up (Rt increases - going to an Rt of 1.75 doubles that ceiling instantly; going to 2.7 (the lower bound of the estimated natural level) trebles it and going to 6 (the higher bound of the estimated natural level) quadruples it.
It is a political story launched by the guardian and their supporters who seem to have a paranoid hatred of Cummings and this dates back to his success over brexit and the many remain enemies he has created and have not moved on
You can see it on here and this is one of the reason voters are turning their backs on the broadcast media and journalist/tv presenters who are way out of their depth and just plain depressing with their constant 'gotcha' attempts over covid
It is no wonder subscriptions to netflix and other subscription services has exploded as they switch off from this ever so petty discourse
At least the public are grown ups thankfully and are not impressed
Worked in the AV referendum. Kind of on point: some think the ftpa was Cameron's most poisonous legacy, others brexit, but I think inventing the "let's spend it on the NHS" argument was the worst.
Oh, wait...
The media are not at fault for raising the issue and role of a political advisor at what is supposed to be an expert advisory group.
The pretence that government policy was being directed by science, rests on the integrity of that advice.
Politicians and political journalists are in a symbiotic relationship.
But that doesn't mean that the media need to facilitate it - they could stop sending their political journalists and instead send journalists with scientific and technical knowledge.
PPE is another area but I suspect the public are more willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to an extent as the government are clearly trying - but the care home situation is a disgrace.
Sorry Scott, it is a non story to the people who matter, the public
I don't know if you are aware of the campaign Guido has been doing for some time on the lobby system. I can see that might also lead to wider change.
If its about good governance then the views of people who dont know who the 2nd most important figure in their own government is, are probably not the people whose views should be listened to.
Without knowing the details of his role within SAGE I cant come to any view on whether or not its good governance. Despite not voting for the govt they are here to stay and I wish them well, but there is surely room for feedback and criticism of the govt that doesnt meet the threshold of an election changer.
The standout from last week was the intelligent questions from the lady representing a military publication, on the day when the defence chief attended.
There's got be a good case for government alternating the pressers, so that every other day has only scientists - with no minister leading.
The government could, of course, invite journalists with scientific and technical knowledge to its press conferences or give them the opportunity to interview ministers. It is possible to reach out to specialist publications. It chooses not to.