In @Philip_Thompson’s world a minister can simply ignore the requirements of statute, make an unlawful decision, enact it, and then tell the court “oh well its done now, soz”.
And face punishment after the fact.
If you break the law then you can be punished after the fact. But yes its done then. So both the law and the voters should be able to enact punishment after the fact.
I believe in general crimes should be punished after they're committed not before they are.
I’ve been watching “Legal Masses” on YouTube. He is an American lawyer who specialises in copyright law, but has been commenting on some of the stuff happening in Portland and in particular the injunctions.
It is a very different legal system in many ways, but one thing that struck me time and again was the concept of “irreparable harm” which is required for an injunction, in other words something is likely to happen that cannot be put right with money.
When you talk of punishment for a minister who gets this wrong it is highly unlikely that that will mean prison or even a fine for them personally. They might get sacked (though I wouldn’t hold my breath) but more likely the department will have to pay damages; but not all wrongs can be set right with money.
The problem arises I think when Judicial Review is used not because the government got anything wrong in law but because the plaintiff is politically opposed to the policy and, having lost the political argument, wants to delay it as much as possible.
Perhaps a compromise would be to continue to allow judicial review for the executive decisions made by government or its agencies, but to prevent it for Acts of Parliament or anything which has been voted on House of Commons?
That is already the case! You cant judicially review Parliament, because it is against the law (as enacted by Parliament) which the courts are judging unlawfulness!
There is nothing to change, because that’s already the system.
This seems to be an attempt at a Judicial Review of something that was in the budget and so has been voted on by Parliament. Are you saying it has no chance of success or am I missing something?
Parliament passes law X on the climate change. Parliament passes law Y on air quality. Parliament passes budget allocating money towards theoretical scheme Z.
Government then proceeds with scheme Z but without taking into account the law of X and Y. It can then be judicially reviewed, as the Government is not taking into account the law that Parliament has passed.
If they wanted to, they could pass a 1 sentence law that exempts the scheme from the provisions in law X and Y, or amends law X and Y to not apply to scheme Z. In which case JR would not be possible.
People have to remember that the Government governs through Parliament. Not in spite of it. We all must follow laws that are already written.
Is the budget not law then?
This is where I do part company from you then: judicial review of Acts of Parliament.
I dont think that's the answer. They just need to draft legislation better and be clear if they want to override another law.
Like the whole binding referendum business. Either they thought referendums were automatically binding as some argued later should have been the case, and thus wrong, or left it out intentionally or otherwise. But if theyd drafted it to clarify the point it would not have arisen as a question.
Drafters arent perfect. But if it's not explicit that certain laws are disspplied then it seems reasonable ground to challenge on the basis parliament must be clear in its intentions if it wants to change the law and theres a conflict.
And they need reminding over and over that ministerial statements and guidance arent law.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Which is all really that can be said until closer to the election, when the charge will be "where are your policies" as it is with every other opposition in the lead up to a GE and which they will do well to ignore and allow the govt's unpopularity to do their work for them.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Compares molotov cocktails to drunken mooning.........
A tough lesson of "actions have consequences" there. No sympathy.
35 years seems excessive considering it looks like there was no intent to endanger life, but obviously a ridiculously stupid thing to do.
Very little sympathy here.
At the end of the article it is revealed that their strategy is to wait until the election for a more favourable justice department to be ushered in. Fire bombing a police car? No, can't see it happening myself.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Perhaps it shows the limits of managerialism. On the great issue of the day, Labour is not saying it would do things differently, just better. And as in the previous thread, Rishi and any other contestant for leadership of the Conservative Party will be saying the same thing once Boris succumbs to the Downing Street bus driver. We'd have the same sort of restrictions and the same sort of business support, only better timed and better targeted.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
“He is running as George Wallace and the Republican Party has accepted that,” said Stevens, the author of “It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump,” a book out on Tuesday. “He tweets about keeping Black people out of the suburbs. I didn’t want to believe this about the party. I went through a period where I said he hijacked the party.” Instead, he concluded the party “had become comfortable as a white grievance party playing on racial tensions.”
Once Trump is gone, the GOP needs to take Trump's advice and drink gallons of bleach to clean out the system and become healthy again.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
The sentences should be reversed.
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
I understand that my university has decided that from September, there will be 3 contact hours per week and the rest online. I assume other universities will implement similar schedules.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
The respondents are quite right. The Opposition is not ready to from the next government, that is quite obvious.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
I understand that my university has decided that from September, there will be 3 contact hours per week and the rest online. I assume other universities will implement similar schedules.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
It's a good point. How does the Open University do it? Do they just send out the course or are there interactive sessions also?
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
Something I don’t agree with at all. It just encourages innocent people to plead guilty.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
Something I don’t agree with at all. It just encourages innocent people to plead guilty.
The respondents are quite right. The Opposition is not ready to from the next government, that is quite obvious.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
Its pretty tough for Dodds with sir Spendalot on the opposite bench. Imagine a tory shadow opposing a labour chancellor who went on an extreme austerity mission.
I understand that my university has decided that from September, there will be 3 contact hours per week and the rest online. I assume other universities will implement similar schedules.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
I understand that my university has decided that from September, there will be 3 contact hours per week and the rest online. I assume other universities will implement similar schedules.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
I understand that my university has decided that from September, there will be 3 contact hours per week and the rest online. I assume other universities will implement similar schedules.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
It's a good point. How does the Open University do it? Do they just send out the course or are there interactive sessions also?
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
Something I don’t agree with at all. It just encourages innocent people to plead guilty.
I suspect this is part of what is driving BLM as much as police persecution. If the police can get a guy charged, they've almost certainly got some sort of result.
I understand that my university has decided that from September, there will be 3 contact hours per week and the rest online. I assume other universities will implement similar schedules.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
It's a good point. How does the Open University do it? Do they just send out the course or are there interactive sessions also?
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Which is all really that can be said until closer to the election, when the charge will be "where are your policies" as it is with every other opposition in the lead up to a GE and which they will do well to ignore and allow the govt's unpopularity to do their work for them.
Unless of course the government is not unpopular.
Nobody expects the party to set out a full slate of policies 4 years before an election, however, they can start setting out the direction of travel. What are the main problems they think the country faces and what are the solutions?
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
Something I don’t agree with at all. It just encourages innocent people to plead guilty.
Absolutely agree, people who are 100% innocent threatened with a long prison sentence for a relatively minor crime unless they enter into a plea deal, just so the justice system can say it's working. No mitigating circumstances allowed and with the poorest needing stretched public defenders they often can't get the representation they need. It's amazing how much it's portrayed in TV shows for the sham it is yet the American people seem not to have a problem with it.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
The law should be changed so that the minimum that can be agreed via a plea bargain is the minimum that a judge can sentence under minimum sentencing rules.
The respondents are quite right. The Opposition is not ready to from the next government, that is quite obvious.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
I am inclined to agree, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment. It's autumn into winter when she will really need to step up. If she can't, it may be time to call for Yvette Cooper.
When YouGov gave the Tories a decent poll, you were at lengths to point out that YouGov were particularly favourable to them. Sifting through the leader ratings, I noticed Opinium average a 19.4% lead for Starmer, whilst the other pollsters average 6.7%. YouGov average 11.2%
I made some graphs to compare the various "outliers" - this is all pollsters, Boris "Satisfaction" lead in Blue, and his "Net Satisfaction" in Red
Our office is open again. Around 130 desks available for over 400 people to use.
Today a grand total of six are occupied.
We're open here too. 4 desks out of 4 occupied in my part, 2 quitters overall as it's company policy to work from the office now too (2 new hires incoming, mind)
How does 400 into 130 work. Is that the fabled "hotdesking" ?
The respondents are quite right. The Opposition is not ready to from the next government, that is quite obvious.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
I am inclined to agree, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment. It's autumn into winter when she will really need to step up. If she can't, it may be time to call for Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper, who even if her seat isn’t abolished may well lose it?
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
When YouGov gave the Tories a decent poll, you were at lengths to point out that YouGov were particularly favourable to them. Sifting through the leader ratings, I noticed Opinium average a 19.4% lead for Starmer, whilst the other pollsters average 6.7%. YouGov average 11.2%
I made some graphs to compare the various "outliers" - this is all pollsters, Boris "Satisfaction" lead in Blue, and his "Net Satisfaction" in Red
Compares molotov cocktails to drunken mooning.........
A tough lesson of "actions have consequences" there. No sympathy.
In reality, of course, being a convicted left-wing terrorist is rarely the kind of handicap people seem to be claiming it is. Bill Ayers went from bombing the Pentagon to a professorship at the University of Illinois; Bernadine Dohrn did the same at the Northwestern University School of Law; Angela Davis went from buying shotguns for a black nationalist to shoot a judge in the head, to professorships at San Francisco State, UCLA, Ruthers, Syracuse, and Vassar. And no doubt the National Lawyers Guild, which funded and supported the Weather Underground during its terrorist phase, will be there to help out these poor, misguided individuals who just got caught up in the whole affair.
The respondents are quite right. The Opposition is not ready to from the next government, that is quite obvious.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
I am inclined to agree, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment. It's autumn into winter when she will really need to step up. If she can't, it may be time to call for Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper, who even if her seat isn’t abolished may well lose it?
That would be - courageous.
If she loses her seat there wil not be a Labour governmemt so it is pretty immaterial.
When YouGov gave the Tories a decent poll, you were at lengths to point out that YouGov were particularly favourable to them. Sifting through the leader ratings, I noticed Opinium average a 19.4% lead for Starmer, whilst the other pollsters average 6.7%. YouGov average 11.2%
I made some graphs to compare the various "outliers" - this is all pollsters, Boris "Satisfaction" lead in Blue, and his "Net Satisfaction" in Red
When YouGov gave the Tories a decent poll, you were at lengths to point out that YouGov were particularly favourable to them. Sifting through the leader ratings, I noticed Opinium average a 19.4% lead for Starmer, whilst the other pollsters average 6.7%. YouGov average 11.2%
I made some graphs to compare the various "outliers" - this is all pollsters, Boris "Satisfaction" lead in Blue, and his "Net Satisfaction" in Red
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
The respondents are quite right. The Opposition is not ready to from the next government, that is quite obvious.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
I am inclined to agree, but I will give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment. It's autumn into winter when she will really need to step up. If she can't, it may be time to call for Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper, who even if her seat isn’t abolished may well lose it?
That would be - courageous.
If she loses her seat there wil not be a Labour governmemt so it is pretty immaterial.
A very small swing would see it go, and given its profile I can see Cooper being beaten while the likes of Baker are taken out in the Remainer south.
@isam thank you for the graphs. I assume they are yours. What is the X axis? Is it number of weeks? It would be more insightful, perhaps, if they were dated as week commencing, and perhaps with important dates highlighted such as “lockdown begun” etc?
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
Was he 2 metres from your door when you opened it ?
Our office is open again. Around 130 desks available for over 400 people to use.
Today a grand total of six are occupied.
We're open here too. 4 desks out of 4 occupied in my part, 2 quitters overall as it's company policy to work from the office now too (2 new hires incoming, mind)
How does 400 into 130 work. Is that the fabled "hotdesking" ?
Only 30% of desks are available for use in order to provide 2m separation.
But there are fewer desks than staff. Agile working, they call it.
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
Was he 2 metres from your door when you opened it ?
Roughly. He did have a mask on, just round his neck rather than his face. I know it’s within guidelines but still seems like an unnecessary risk. I’m annoyed at myself for opening the door - I thought he was a delivery driver.
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
They might be too good at it, and people would start asking questions.
35 years for destruction of property versus the sentence the killers (manslaughter) of the Police Officer got recently here makes a very sharp contrast.
The US often has extremely harsh mandatory/minimum sentences for offenses to encourage plea bargaining. If you're up against a 35 year minimum (and its federal, so there's no parole, just up to 1/3 off for good behavior), and are offered a plea deal to something much more lenient, then you and your lawyer have to be 100% sure you can beat the proffered charge otherwise it's a no-brainer. That is all intentional.
Something I don’t agree with at all. It just encourages innocent people to plead guilty.
Absolutely agree, people who are 100% innocent threatened with a long prison sentence for a relatively minor crime unless they enter into a plea deal, just so the justice system can say it's working. No mitigating circumstances allowed and with the poorest needing stretched public defenders they often can't get the representation they need. It's amazing how much it's portrayed in TV shows for the sham it is yet the American people seem not to have a problem with it.
They dont think it'll ever happen to them personally.
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
If you read the article, you would see that the "problem" the author is finding is that the vast majority of the infected don't know they are infected and so don't get a test.
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
If you read the article, you would see that the "problem" the author is finding is that the vast majority of the infected don't know they are infected and so don't get a test.
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
Implying that GCHQ doesn't have the ability to do blood tests remotely (or send a spook in to shove a swab up your nose at 3am).
Just had a bloody door-to-door sales person come round who wasn’t wearing a mask. I’m supposed to be shielding so I told him to F off (politely) and quickly closed the door.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
Likewise, although mine had a visor but not a mask. A visor doesn't help much, just stops my stuff getting in his eyes.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
If you read the article, you would see that the "problem" the author is finding is that the vast majority of the infected don't know they are infected and so don't get a test.
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
It's not about knowing the majority is it though, just a few, and finding everyone they've associated with. That is GCHQ's job surely, pulling the threads together.
@isam thank you for the graphs. I assume they are yours. What is the X axis? Is it number of weeks? It would be more insightful, perhaps, if they were dated as week commencing, and perhaps with important dates highlighted such as “lockdown begun” etc?
Just a few thoughts.
Thanks.
Sorry, they are the number of polls whilst Sir Keir has been LotO. Here you go
Updated to include todays IPSOS-MORI, where Boris claws backs 9 points I believe
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
They might be too good at it, and people would start asking questions.
It is basically what South Korea and Israel did. "Hey guys we just happen to have this database filled with the movements of everyone who carries a mobile phone".
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
If you read the article, you would see that the "problem" the author is finding is that the vast majority of the infected don't know they are infected and so don't get a test.
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
It's not about knowing the majority is it though, just a few, and finding everyone they've associated with. That is GCHQ's job surely, pulling the threads together.
How are they supposed to do that if they are asymptomatic and don't know they have it? The problem, according to the article, is that the asymptomatic are walking around freely.
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks -It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on -Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
If you read the article, you would see that the "problem" the author is finding is that the vast majority of the infected don't know they are infected and so don't get a test.
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
It's not about knowing the majority is it though, just a few, and finding everyone they've associated with. That is GCHQ's job surely, pulling the threads together.
No, that is not correct.
His first assumption is that you need to have a track on the vast majority of the infected. That has not be accomplished anywhere.
GCHQ won't tell you who has been infected, and silently infected others, who have silently infected others.
If you read the article, you would see that the "problem" the author is finding is that the vast majority of the infected don't know they are infected and so don't get a test.
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
Yep, but the least symptomatic are probably significantly less likely to spread the virus. Basically if you could whack all the super spreaders you would be half way done, the long tail of the infected doesn't matter too much if you get almost all of the worst cases.
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
Yep - lots still to do, but Labour now has the chance to get a hearing in a way that has not been the case for a long time. That is a good place to start from.
SKS Labour behind Corbyns and Milibands on is the opposition ready to become a Government
Oh dear
59% thought Labour wasn't ready to form a government under Corbyn. It was 52% under Miliband. That number is now 47% after five months of Starmer. Only Tony Blair did better.
Another way of looking at it is Starmer has the worst positives out of himself, Miliband and Corbyn
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
Lack of negatives is very important in a FPTP system. The least worst option is often the choice people feel forced to make.
One point about these figures that strikes me is how few people do not have a decided view of Johnson.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
Does he need to improve his ratings much? If his 47% are firm the haters don't matter. Surely that just reflects the natural political divide in the UK and elsewhere. He's been a divisive figure for a while but unless the negatives turn voters away from the party he could win again. Starmer's problem which is likely to grow is that he will have to come up with policies at some point - and all recent Labour leaders have struggled to convince voters on that score. The last one to manage it was Blair and Labour members hate him more than Boris. The voters liked him and his policies. Of course there was a reason for that.....
The point is that over time, a large proportion of the ‘favourable’ will move away. Decisions they disagree with, scandals, something he says, etc.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
I was caned at school for throwing a cricket ball at a teacher. In truth, I couldn't throw and he wasn't watching the game he was supposed to be umpiring. Not that I bear grudges 40-odd years later.
(Come to think of it, probably every teacher to have wielded a cane in anger is dead now, or at least retired, since it was abolished 40 years ago by the lefty Thatcher government and you'd have needed to be 22 to be a teacher and probably 30 to be trusted with a stick by the 1970s.)
Trump: COVID-19 vaccine may be ready 'right around' Election Day
The Hill
I did say this a week ago. About 10 days before the election he will annouce the vaccine, He will get the army mobilised to deliver it. he will be seen as America's saviour and he will win.
Trump: COVID-19 vaccine may be ready 'right around' Election Day
The Hill
I did say this a week ago. About 10 days before the election he will annouce the vaccine, He will get the army mobilised to deliver it. he will be seen as America's saviour and he will win.
And how many millions of ballots will have been cast before this point?
Obviously there’s no way they can distribute 300m vaccines in 10 days anyway.
Trump: COVID-19 vaccine may be ready 'right around' Election Day
The Hill
I did say this a week ago. About 10 days before the election he will annouce the vaccine, He will get the army mobilised to deliver it. he will be seen as America's saviour and he will win.
And how many millions of ballots will have been cast before this point?
Obviously there’s no way they can distribute 300m vaccines in 10 days anyway.
It won't matter, Americans will start shouting USA USA USA and vote Trump
Scary I know, but the fact that Trump is not 50 points behind with the madness that he talks shows that Americans are easily pleased.
Trump will announce he has a vaccine ready, even if he doesn’t. That could potentially back-fire enormously.
I also wonder what the Trump supporting anti-vaxers will think.
As with religious fundamentalists, that he is playing a "long game" and is on their side really. They are capable of incredible mental gymnastics to justify their true driving motivation - to drive the wider culture war forward.
Comments
Starmer has taken over the Labour Party, but has not dealt with the various issues in the party completely, yet. EHCR report etc.
He has then to set out a program of policies and sell them to the country as departure from the previous leadership.
Essentially - promising start, but lots to do.
https://twitter.com/Richard_Spoor/status/1290976662721527809
Compares molotov cocktails to drunken mooning.........
Like the whole binding referendum business. Either they thought referendums were automatically binding as some argued later should have been the case, and thus wrong, or left it out intentionally or otherwise. But if theyd drafted it to clarify the point it would not have arisen as a question.
Drafters arent perfect. But if it's not explicit that certain laws are disspplied then it seems reasonable ground to challenge on the basis parliament must be clear in its intentions if it wants to change the law and theres a conflict.
And they need reminding over and over that ministerial statements and guidance arent law.
Enough armchair legality for me.
Unless of course the government is not unpopular.
Very little sympathy here.
Oh dear
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-biden-bag-tricks-giuliani-391081
This particularly resonated:
“He is running as George Wallace and the Republican Party has accepted that,” said Stevens, the author of “It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump,” a book out on Tuesday. “He tweets about keeping Black people out of the suburbs. I didn’t want to believe this about the party. I went through a period where I said he hijacked the party.” Instead, he concluded the party “had become comfortable as a white grievance party playing on racial tensions.”
Once Trump is gone, the GOP needs to take Trump's advice and drink gallons of bleach to clean out the system and become healthy again.
I don’t however think these people should have their entire lives ruined due to this, although they certainly should face serious consequences. US sentences are quite something.
They should read PB
Nothing to see here...
35 years for the killers and a few years for destruction of property seem more apt.
Annoying really - that’s what £12,500 is getting me.
Labour under Blair and before him John Smith put a massive amount of effort into ensuring they were ready. Keir Starmer has to do the same; it will take time. The difference compared with Corbyn's leadership is that it's possible to imagine that Labour might get there over the next three or four years.
I'm still unconvinced about Anneliese Dodds, though. That is the absolute key role, other than that of the leader himself, for establishing credibility. She's nowhere near there yet, and it is wasting valuable time.
Reminds me of various teary eyed guilty teenagers after the London riots years back.
Guaranteed to turn people to hang em and flog em views.
Thst said, sentencing in the USA seems even worse than here.
Plus, wait, is there still an Open University!?
Our office is open again. Around 130 desks available for over 400 people to use.
Today a grand total of six are occupied.
Was 69 cases a week ago, now it's 81.
The last few days have been the first time Week on Week figures have been higher since the middle of May
Nobody on my floor at all.
If people start getting elected by lack of negatives, he's doing well I guess
When YouGov gave the Tories a decent poll, you were at lengths to point out that YouGov were particularly favourable to them. Sifting through the leader ratings, I noticed Opinium average a 19.4% lead for Starmer, whilst the other pollsters average 6.7%. YouGov average 11.2%
I made some graphs to compare the various "outliers" - this is all pollsters, Boris "Satisfaction" lead in Blue, and his "Net Satisfaction" in Red
How does 400 into 130 work. Is that the fabled "hotdesking" ?
That would be - courageous.
Unfair, in the sense that he was far too generous.
Doesn’t seem ideal in the current circumstances.
Admittedly I don’t understand what his admirers see in him, but just 5% have no view.
That means to improve his ratings he has to convert people who dislike him into supporters. That will be very hard. The opposite is a lot more likely.
Meanwhile, comparatively few people have a deep dislike of Starmer (and many of them may be Corbynistas infuriated by his anti racism as our own dear BJO is). He has as many ‘don’t knows’ as ‘don’t likes’ which is a nice profitable pool to fish in especially if Johnson continues to show all the clarity, stability and decision of a drunk on a bouncy castle.
As far as I am aware, no testing program in any country claims to be identifying more than a small fraction of the infected.
This is because the majority of those infected do not know they have the disease.
So, unless you test everyone in the country, repeatedly, the testing will only find those who are ill enough to notice.
So *all* track and trace programs can't work, according to this idea.
Edit - if Buttler was a decent keeper, Bess would now have four wickets, against some of the best players of spin in the world.
Just a few thoughts.
But there are fewer desks than staff. Agile working, they call it.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-uk-intelligence-agency-issues-public-warning-about-criminals-exploiting-outbreak-11958113
They are funded to snoop. Why can't track and trace be put squarely in their lap?
-It would be a publicity win for the spooks
-It makes the most of a national asset we've spent vast amounts on
-Hopefully they'd do a good job - they'd certainly have a vested interest in doing so
This is the case in every country around the world, I understand.
The Hill
This is absurd. Even I throw better than that.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1291386719745511431
Sorry, they are the number of polls whilst Sir Keir has been LotO. Here you go
Updated to include todays IPSOS-MORI, where Boris claws backs 9 points I believe
His first assumption is that you need to have a track on the vast majority of the infected. That has not be accomplished anywhere.
GCHQ won't tell you who has been infected, and silently infected others, who have silently infected others.
This is why this is hard.
Meanwhile it’s unusual for those who have unfavourable views of someone after they have become PM to change their minds. Blair over Princess Diana’s death was a dazzling exception, or Thatcher over the Falklands. I don’t quite see Johnson doing the same. This crisis might have been a similar opportunity but his handling of it has been at best inept and at worst catastrophic.
Starmer, however, slightly behind Johnson on raw numbers, has a quarter of the vote to mine - as people get to know him, there’s a chance they’ll come to like him.
Of course, the opposite may happen (Neil Kinnock) or he may totally fail to cut through a la Ming Campbell, but the potential is there.
(Come to think of it, probably every teacher to have wielded a cane in anger is dead now, or at least retired, since it was abolished 40 years ago by the lefty Thatcher government and you'd have needed to be 22 to be a teacher and probably 30 to be trusted with a stick by the 1970s.)
https://twitter.com/CameronGarrett_/status/1291365800906051584
https://twitter.com/CameronGarrett_/status/1291365802453630976
The rest of that thread is interesting.
Obviously there’s no way they can distribute 300m vaccines in 10 days anyway.
Scary I know, but the fact that Trump is not 50 points behind with the madness that he talks shows that Americans are easily pleased.
I also wonder what the Trump supporting anti-vaxers will think.