Whenever the shake-up comes, several other ministers are thought to be at risk of losing their jobs. There is growing scepticism inside Number 10 about international trade secretary Liz Truss. “She’s something of an unexploded bomb and I can’t see her surviving a reshuffle,” according to one Whitehall official.
Only a few here remain confident in Truss, even Number 10 does not
Ability is not important. Lack of taste buds is more critical
41 positive test cases as of today in a city of 500k people.
This country has lost all sense of perspective. The police not only spoil a kids birthday party FFS - in a garden! - but then think they shoudl brag about it in their covid-19 obsession way on social media - absolutely pathetic .Still kneel for any BLM march wont you (and thats somehow ok in a pandemic)
And yet there seems almost a manic desire among some to get back to the way we were - to turn the clock back and try to forget Covid-19 ever happened. Of course, for those who have to live with it and those who have lost loved ones that isn't easy and as usual these groups are being forgotten.
We shouldn't even try to go back, we've had a decade or more's worth of change in the space of six months — at an enormous cost — the least we should do is to try to hang onto the few positive aspects of that change. Things like more WFH, less commuting, less pollution, a small boost for local retail, etc.
There's zero probability of businesses and workers returning to the status quo ante February. WFH just has too many advantages; even when Covid is over and done with, I don't see why most people would want or need to drag themselves into city centre offices full-time. It's just a matter of how much commuting is still necessary, if any, or how little they can get away with.
The railway station car park here in commuter belt market town land, which I can see from my flat, used to be pretty much full Monday to Friday before this all kicked off. During Peak Lockdown, the number of cars was anywhere between zero and about four. Even now, nearly at the end of Summer, it's still about 95% empty. Incidentally, leisure traffic at the weekends is also a pale shadow of its former self.
The age of full-time mass commuting is over. Kaput. Finished.
*cancel HS2 now please. By the time it's finished you'll probably be able to hologram yourself into a room by videoconference anyway.
The London to Birmingham phase will happen. It's a make work scheme for the construction industry, there'll be clucking about sunk costs, and the Government might also want to help the West Midlands Metro Mayor defend his position.
As to the remainder of it, who knows? These projects are so agonizingly slow to complete that the final yea or nay can probably be dumped on the desk of Johnson's successor. Or the Prime Minister after that.
But I take your point. The primary justification used for HS2 by its supporters is the improvement in capacity, rather than speed. If half the existing passenger capacity is freed up by permanent mass WFH, then the central plank of their argument is removed (and the same can probably be said of Crossrail 2, which nobody will be in a hurry to break ground on after the continual delays and out of control costs of Crossrail 1.)
If the Government is concerned about having its commitment to the North and the levelling up agenda brought into question by shunting the remainder of HS2 into the long grass of review, then it might be better off injecting a bit of impetus into the improvement of the Transpennine routes instead.
Sample of 1 organisation, but we surveyed our 90 staff in deepest Surrey and the overwhelming majority (mostly in the 25-40 age range) said they preferred working at home and/or would be worried about an early return. We've postponed any resumption until February at the earliest.
Exception: a small number of staff with no comfortable home working space are very disappointed and there's talk of perhaps opening the office to enable them to work there.
Note that KANYE WEST did NOT make the ballot in Wisconsin. Why? Because the GOP hack responsible for delivering KY's petition signatures to the state election board missed the legal deadline for submitting sigs by less than two minutes.
Have heard zero explanation for this faux pas BUT certainly sounds like SERIOUS incompetence. Of course we know that today/s Republican Party IS a criminal clown college.
BTW, risks of missing such legal deadlines are WELL KNOWN in states where petition gathering for ballot measures is commonplace. Such as the Badger State, where Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette introduced initiatives and referenda in 1890s (IIRC) as means of allowing people to legislate directly, to circumvent the political control & corruption of the legislature by trusts and other special interests.
Note that in WA State about twenty years ago, sponsors of a statewide initiative failed to deliver hundreds of thousands of signatures on time. Deadline was 4.30pm at Secretary of State's office in Olympia.
Organizer with the petitions left Seattle early afternoon - and got stuck in a big traffic jam on I-5 (a common occurrence) and arrived about 5 minutes late. The sponsors went to court, but judge turned them down flat.
Also BTW, the Kanye West "campaign" also failed to qualify for the ballot in Illinois (his home state). This despite fact that, due to COVID, signature requirement for 3rd- party presidential hopefuls was reduced from 25,000 valid voter signatures down to 2,500. Upon scrutiny, turned out that KW's GOP hacks submitted fewer than half that measly requirement.
KW's ballot access has been denied (for lateness, bogus sigs, etc) in: > Illinois, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia
So far Putinists have qualified their stodge (Kanye that is) in following states: > Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont (5)
Deadlines are still to come in: > Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming (8)
If there is proof the SNP leaked it they will receive full condemnation from me, until then, no
Maybe reserve judgment
One can reserve judgement and consider that ideally there is some indication of why it is felt a certain party was responsible for something to the point an accusation is confidently made. I can easily believe the accusation, but what grounds are there for it, we don't generally just make an accusation and then get happily proven right by an enquiry, something has to provoke the accusation to be in a certain direction.
The fact that the weather in the Highlands is forecast to be utterly shite for the next few days has nothing to do with Boris's changed plans of course.
I have had a good evening getting to grips with Mozart's Rondo Alla Turca on my piano!
More productive than my evening of reading a vampire fiction novel (in my defence, I am trying to read up all my unread books, and cannot recall why I even owned it in the first place).
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
No I am not, I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 and probably Republican at Congressional and State level if I was American, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders. The last Republican I would have voted for for president was George W Bush in 2000.
However I still think it will be close, Biden has had his bounce now from the Democratic convention and Trump will likely get some bounce after the Republican convention next week, even if the bounce is smaller than normal as they are online
Why? How is it any different to the EU saying we're to blame for a no deal Brexit? Both sides are needed for a deal, but (publicly at least) both are still at the childish phase of just moaning that the other side won't give in. None of it means a damn thing, and both are acting the same way.
Note that KANYE WEST did NOT make the ballot in Wisconsin. Why? Because the GOP hack responsible for delivering KY's petition signatures to the state election board missed the legal deadline for submitting sigs by less than two minutes.
Have heard zero explanation for this faux pas BUT certainly sounds like SERIOUS incompetence. Of course we know that today/s Republican Party IS a criminal clown college.
BTW, risks of missing such legal deadlines are WELL KNOWN in states where petition gathering for ballot measures is commonplace. Such as the Badger State, where Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette introduced initiatives and referenda in 1890s (IIRC) as means of allowing people to legislate directly, to circumvent the political control & corruption of the legislature by trusts and other special interests.
Note that in WA State about twenty years ago, sponsors of a statewide initiative failed to deliver hundreds of thousands of signatures on time. Deadline was 4.30pm at Secretary of State's office in Olympia.
Organizer with the petitions left Seattle early afternoon - and got stuck in a big traffic jam on I-5 (a common occurrence) and arrived about 5 minutes late. The sponsors went to court, but judge turned them down flat.
Also BTW, the Kanye West "campaign" also failed to qualify for the ballot in Illinois (his home state). This despite fact that, due to COVID, signature requirement for 3rd- party presidential hopefuls was reduced from 25,000 valid voter signatures down to 2,500. Upon scrutiny, turned out that KW's GOP hacks submitted fewer than half that measly requirement.
KW's ballot access has been denied (for lateness, bogus sigs, etc) in: > Illinois, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia
So far Putinists have qualified their stodge (Kanye that is) in following states: > Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont (5)
Deadlines are still to come in: > Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming (8)
Of those lists, only CO and AZ are potentially consequential, and I doubt even that.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
On the contrary - if even the Daily Express - the Daily Express - is beginning to wake up to the potential catastrophe which Boris (with their support) has been leading us to for months, that's a very positive development.
At this stage there are two options, both disagreeable: Cave-in or crash-out. Crash-out is obviously worse, by a country mile, so anything which shows the numpties are waking up to the impending disaster is much to be welcomed. We just have to hope that the government is not too far behind the Daily Express in understanding the situation.
The wretched details of The Donald's ill-gotten gains will eventually see the light - but NOT until AFTER the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
That's the entire rationale behind Trumpky's legal gobbledegook.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
To be absolutely fair to the AG in this instance, I dare say that (a) she agrees with Mrs Harper and (b) she both wants to give this a try and feels the need to be seen to be doing so.
To put it another way, for what conceivable reason would the Government tell the widow "we think this is a fool's errand, go away"?
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
I'm sure it will be like most Nolan movies - superb in all technical respects, but nonetheless overhyped.
I love all of his movies, I think he's a genius. For me they've all lived up to the hype!
I think he makes very good movies, no question, I just think that some directors and writers get pegged as making great movies and others merely good movies, and the actual dividing line between the two is not as stark as made out, and thus geniuses are not as stand out as people think. Thus even very good films get overhyped (I put Parasite in that category as well).
I also think that those who are particularly good with visuals can get away with slack on writing and plot (I note the BBC review does say it is predictable), especially if they make it confusing (and thus, 'deep').
On the contrary - if even the Daily Express - the Daily Express - is beginning to wake up to the potential catastrophe which Boris (with their support) has been leading us to for months, that's a very positive development.
At this stage there are two options, both disagreeable: Cave-in or crash-out. Crash-out is obviously worse, by a country mile, so anything which shows the numpties are waking up to the impending disaster is much to be welcomed. We just have to hope that the government is not too far behind the Daily Express in understanding the situation.
Fair point but it's the way they just flip flop like we're all stupid.
If they're accepting No Deal will be a catastrophe - which with our economy in the toilet I don't know why you'd do anything that might make that worse, especially something you have control over - then that's fine but they need to stick to it.
I'm afraid that's just a misreading of what it means. Not to only do anything when cases are zero but to push and push to get them as close to zero as possible. This gives you more breathing space to deal with any outbreaks.
Of course, it relies on having an efficient test, track and isolate system, so it's not going to work as we are now (and why the UK government won't think about it).
The policy is a desirable one, however. It does mean 'intrusive' monitoring etc, and that's a good thing! It does, however, lead to fewer and lighter lockdowns, that's the whole point, not to have to rely on them.
We need to find a balance between some level of COVID in the community and life carrying on as (reasonably) normal. Today more people are dieing of influenza, cancer and car crashes than COVID - are we aiming for zero cancer, zero car crashes or zero influenza? It's epidemiologically illiterate.
Beyond that, Herdson's point about ever more extreme measures to deal with the disease as it moves closer to zero prevalence is demonstrably correct. New Zealand had a small cluster of cases and it caused such a monumental panic that a third of the population was put back into tight lockdown and the general election was postponed - and they're at constant risk of further such cycles, because the disease still exists out in the world. Besides which, we don't have the level of geographical isolation that would make pursuing such an approach a realistic option: even if we can intercept and quarantine all the illegal immigrants, what the Hell could we do about the constant flow of truck drivers?
We need to aim for a degree of control over the disease sufficient to avoid another mass eruption. Absent a completely effective vaccine, which we may not have for years and might never have at all, trying to wipe it out completely would be so disruptive and damaging that it wouldn't be worth the cost.
Spot on.
Once you have it down to a low level, you maintain those measures that have the lowest cost way of keeping R close to 1.
So, no nightclubs for now (sorry), no indoor concerts, restrictions on gyms, masks on public transport, and quarantine on those coming from abroad.
Between them, those measures appreciably cut R without a massive economic impact.
I totally agree. Here is the problem though. Rationalists like you and Carlotta are not running the policy making decision. It is civil servants and scientific staff who do and - since they get paid regardless of whether the economy is on its knees or not, with no impact on their pensions etc - are quite happy to dictate to the public what they should and should not do.
I don't really understand the security concerns re- Johnson's holiday. Harold Wilson went to the Scilly Isles every year and everyone knew he was there.
No I am not, I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 and probably Republican at Congressional and State level if I was American, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders. The last Republican I would have voted for for president was George W Bush in 2000.
However I still think it will be close, Biden has had his bounce now from the Democratic convention and Trump will likely get some bounce after the Republican convention next week, even if the bounce is smaller than normal as they are online
Trump RNC bounce is what you'd expect from a NORMAL candidate and convention. However, this year both are abnormal.
Back in 2016, the Republican convention was a shit-show. Maybe it impressed some swing voters, but methinks many more who voted for Trumpsky in 2016 did so DESPITE that years GOP convo rather than because of it.
Does anyone know, what bump (if any) Trumpsky got post-RNC in 2016?
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
To be absolutely fair to the AG in this instance, I dare say that (a) she agrees with Mrs Harper and (b) she both wants to give this a try and feels the need to be seen to be doing so.
To put it another way, for what conceivable reason would the Government tell the widow "we think this is a fool's errand, go away"?
I hope a) is correct, otherwise it would be a waste of time and resources hard to justify. I'm sure they wouldn't want to tell the widow it's a fool's errand and to go away, but if it is in fact a fool's errand, and they privately accept that, it does her and the public no favours to waste time on it by pretending otherwise.
Given the government wants to go after judges anyway, anything that might make a court unpopular is probably approved of though.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
I think you are assuming political interference - with no evidence
The wretched details of The Donald's ill-gotten gains will eventually see the light - but NOT until AFTER the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
That's the entire rationale behind Trumpky's legal gobbledegook.
Haven't seem such legal delaying tactics since Berlusconi was in office.
I'm sure it will be like most Nolan movies - superb in all technical respects, but nonetheless overhyped.
I love all of his movies, I think he's a genius. For me they've all lived up to the hype!
I think he makes very good movies, no question, I just think that some directors and writers get pegged as making great movies and others merely good movies, and the actual dividing line between the two is not as stark as made out, and thus geniuses are not as stand out as people think. Thus even very good films get overhyped (I put Parasite in that category as well).
I also think that those who are particularly good with visuals can get away with slack on writing and plot (I note the BBC review does say it is predictable), especially if they make it confusing (and thus, 'deep').
Dark Knight is one of the best superhero movies made and completely reinvented the genre. DC has been failing to capture it ever since.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
I don't really understand the security concerns re- Johnson's holiday. Harold Wilson went to the Scilly Isles every year and everyone knew he was there.
Diehard Remainers and Scottish Nationalists are a little more vocal though than disgruntled Heathites
The wretched details of The Donald's ill-gotten gains will eventually see the light - but NOT until AFTER the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
That's the entire rationale behind Trumpky's legal gobbledegook.
Wasn't that the logic of the judge's ruling? - the stop Team Trumpsky's ability to slow down the process by constantly shifting the goal posts of the legal arguments
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
I think you are assuming political interference - with no evidence
On the contrary. I am assuming there will not be and therefore the sentences will be unchanged.
I am however very uneasy at the strong probability, obliquely confirmed by the Tories’ cheerleader in chief, that this referral is about spinning the government as tough on crime rather than a cold-eyed assessment of the case.
I don't really understand the security concerns re- Johnson's holiday. Harold Wilson went to the Scilly Isles every year and everyone knew he was there.
Now is not then. They also used to not block off the road past Downing Street, but they do now.
That said, I wasn't even aware things were apparently so secretive with PM holiday locations and it surprises me, but referencing back to another political age hardly speaks to the reasonableness of such secrecy.
Yes they behaved appallingly in the court but why does that impact what their sentence is? The sentence should fit the crime, we don't punish for the sake of it in this country.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
To be absolutely fair to the AG in this instance, I dare say that (a) she agrees with Mrs Harper and (b) she both wants to give this a try and feels the need to be seen to be doing so.
To put it another way, for what conceivable reason would the Government tell the widow "we think this is a fool's errand, go away"?
I hope a) is correct, otherwise it would be a waste of time and resources hard to justify. I'm sure they wouldn't want to tell the widow it's a fool's errand and to go away, but if it is in fact a fool's errand, and they privately accept that, it does her and the public no favours to waste time on it by pretending otherwise.
Given the government wants to go after judges anyway, anything that might make a court unpopular is probably approved of though.
It has been reported that about two-thirds of appeals re: unduly lenient sentences are successful, so to the lay observer it does indeed seem to be worth a shot.
Your last point is probably valid and somewhat disturbing.
I don't really understand the security concerns re- Johnson's holiday. Harold Wilson went to the Scilly Isles every year and everyone knew he was there.
Now is not then. They also used to not block off the road past Downing Street, but they do now.
That said, I wasn't even aware things were apparently so secretive with PM holiday locations and it surprises me, but referencing back to another political age hardly speaks to the reasonableness of such secrecy.
But from the late 1960s we had the IRA threat - if anything, the need for security was greater then.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
I think you are assuming political interference - with no evidence
On the contrary. I am assuming there will not be and therefore the sentences will be unchanged.
I am however very uneasy at the strong probability, obliquely confirmed by the Tories’ cheerleader in chief, that this referral is about spinning the government as tough on crime rather than a cold-eyed assessment of the case.
Not sure why you conclude its a strong probability? no evidence to suggest so
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
To be absolutely fair to the AG in this instance, I dare say that (a) she agrees with Mrs Harper and (b) she both wants to give this a try and feels the need to be seen to be doing so.
To put it another way, for what conceivable reason would the Government tell the widow "we think this is a fool's errand, go away"?
I hope a) is correct, otherwise it would be a waste of time and resources hard to justify. I'm sure they wouldn't want to tell the widow it's a fool's errand and to go away, but if it is in fact a fool's errand, and they privately accept that, it does her and the public no favours to waste time on it by pretending otherwise.
Given the government wants to go after judges anyway, anything that might make a court unpopular is probably approved of though.
It has been reported that about two-thirds of appeals re: unduly lenient sentences are successful, so to the lay observer it does indeed seem to be worth a shot.
Your last point is probably valid and somewhat disturbing.
About two thirds of referred appeals are successful. That’s because if they have no chance of succeeding, or even are marginal, they’re not likely to be referred.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
Judges are not the barrier to delivering the 'will of the people' that they are in the US. Even if that was a justification for undermining the judiciary, you don't need to take down our judges to get past their 'interference', government usually just needs to draft its legislation better taking note of the impacts of other legislation which might need to be amended.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
So far Putinists have qualified their stodge (Kanye that is) in following states: > Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont (5)
I would ask you to withdraw that comment that I am in any way connected to Vladimir Putin.
It's very late here in the Chelyabinsk warehouse and I wanted to go home but now I have to do an extra post on this forum because of you.
Sir, you do NOT have brand rights to "stodge" it is my birthright to use this fine old word in its pure sense! And for YOU to try to hijack it is surely - and grossly - impure!
AND please give my regards to Valdi!
Especially as am now 99.44% certain that "stodge" is really JARED KUSHNER!!!
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
Judges are not the barrier to delivering the 'will of the people' that they are in the US. Even if that was a justification for undermining the judiciary, you don't need to take down our judges to get past their 'interference', government usually just needs to draft its legislation better taking note of the impacts of other legislation which might need to be amended.
Judges are elected in the US at the state levels and have to listen to the people to get elected, who knows what Cummings has up his sleeve?
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
I think you are assuming political interference - with no evidence
On the contrary. I am assuming there will not be and therefore the sentences will be unchanged.
I am however very uneasy at the strong probability, obliquely confirmed by the Tories’ cheerleader in chief, that this referral is about spinning the government as tough on crime rather than a cold-eyed assessment of the case.
Not sure why you conclude its a strong probability? no evidence to suggest so
Because there is no obvious reason to refer this. The sentences were at the upper end of the guidelines. Moreover, they are pretty severe sentences, and because the convicts will have no fixed address to go to at the end as a condition of licence are likely to be served in full.
Meanwhile, we have somebody on here boasting about how judges need to be brought under the control of politicians and popular will. Well, mob rule is not justice. Mob rule would have seen Harvey Proctor lynched.
No I am not, I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 and probably Republican at Congressional and State level if I was American, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders. The last Republican I would have voted for for president was George W Bush in 2000.
However I still think it will be close, Biden has had his bounce now from the Democratic convention and Trump will likely get some bounce after the Republican convention next week, even if the bounce is smaller than normal as they are online
Trump RNC bounce is what you'd expect from a NORMAL candidate and convention. However, this year both are abnormal.
Back in 2016, the Republican convention was a shit-show. Maybe it impressed some swing voters, but methinks many more who voted for Trumpsky in 2016 did so DESPITE that years GOP convo rather than because of it.
Does anyone know, what bump (if any) Trumpsky got post-RNC in 2016?
No I am not, I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 and probably Republican at Congressional and State level if I was American, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders. The last Republican I would have voted for for president was George W Bush in 2000.
However I still think it will be close, Biden has had his bounce now from the Democratic convention and Trump will likely get some bounce after the Republican convention next week, even if the bounce is smaller than normal as they are online
Trump RNC bounce is what you'd expect from a NORMAL candidate and convention. However, this year both are abnormal.
Back in 2016, the Republican convention was a shit-show. Maybe it impressed some swing voters, but methinks many more who voted for Trumpsky in 2016 did so DESPITE that years GOP convo rather than because of it.
Does anyone know, what bump (if any) Trumpsky got post-RNC in 2016?
Both Trump and Clinton got 4% post convention bounces in 2016.
I found the Trump convention far more exciting than the Romney convention which was like a widget makers conference.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
Judges are not the barrier to delivering the 'will of the people' that they are in the US. Even if that was a justification for undermining the judiciary, you don't need to take down our judges to get past their 'interference', government usually just needs to draft its legislation better taking note of the impacts of other legislation which might need to be amended.
While I won't attribute this to Cummings, who is something a mythical bogeyman to his opponents, it does seem to me that politics in general is full of people who will, in identifying a problem (whether it objectively is one or not), insist upon something major and radical in the mistaken belief it is decisive and necessary.
Sometimes it can be necessary to root and branch things, tweaking stuff will not always address key issues. However, tweaking things gradually has actually worked pretty well for the British constitution, and my instinct is it is a rare issue that needs truly dramatic resolutions in order to solve the identified problems.
The difficulty is incremental or proportionate fixes are not sexy campaign promises, you don't get plaudits for your sensible gradual reform of something while in office, so politicians have a tendency to shoot big, miss obvious fixes, let perfect be the enemy of the good, and yet somehow also avoid the places where really substantial change really is needed until it is too late, because those are the more controversial bits.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
Judges are not the barrier to delivering the 'will of the people' that they are in the US. Even if that was a justification for undermining the judiciary, you don't need to take down our judges to get past their 'interference', government usually just needs to draft its legislation better taking note of the impacts of other legislation which might need to be amended.
Judges are elected in the US at the state levels and have to listen to the people to get elected, who knows what Cummings has up his sleeve?
If they listened to the people, Dominic Cummings would probably have been executed by now.
Which would be excessive for what he did. A five thousand quid fine and a twelve month driving ban would have met the case.
Anyway, PB is not loading and my eyelids are closing.
None of the three back to school options are equivalent in terms of extra movement, mixing etc. Ask for all three together and you are probably a lot closer. Even taking that into consideration 29% would prefer to be able to meet up with people? The public are just not being serious about this, wanting something without putting the big effort in that would be required.
Thanks to the morons on Twitter, Labour is now seen as more divided, well done cranks!
Given many respondents will not themselves be on twitter, I would not blame twitter for Labour being seen to be more divided, I'd blame that it actually is more divided.
Thanks to the morons on Twitter, Labour is now seen as more divided, well done cranks!
Given many respondents will not themselves be on twitter, I would not blame twitter for Labour being seen to be more divided, I'd blame that it actually is more divided.
These muppets shout very loudly and give off a bad impression.
The party is in general less divided in terms of the PLP than it has been for some time but a small group of MPs continue to attack the leadership and this is a big problem.
Starmer needs to make a statement and EHRC will give him grounds to make necessary changes
Competent, shares my values good for Labour but out of touch and divided are a worry, I am curious why these would have increased a large amount since January. Thoughts beyond cranks?
Lab improvements on economy and crime are encouraging
No I am not, I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary in 2016 and probably Republican at Congressional and State level if I was American, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders. The last Republican I would have voted for for president was George W Bush in 2000.
However I still think it will be close, Biden has had his bounce now from the Democratic convention and Trump will likely get some bounce after the Republican convention next week, even if the bounce is smaller than normal as they are online
Trump RNC bounce is what you'd expect from a NORMAL candidate and convention. However, this year both are abnormal.
Back in 2016, the Republican convention was a shit-show. Maybe it impressed some swing voters, but methinks many more who voted for Trumpsky in 2016 did so DESPITE that years GOP convo rather than because of it.
Does anyone know, what bump (if any) Trumpsky got post-RNC in 2016?
Both Trump and Clinton got 4% post convention bounces in 2016.
I found the Trump convention far more exciting than the Romney convention which was like a widget makers conference.
Thanks to the morons on Twitter, Labour is now seen as more divided, well done cranks!
Given many respondents will not themselves be on twitter, I would not blame twitter for Labour being seen to be more divided, I'd blame that it actually is more divided.
What could the reasons for this increase be do you think?
It's amazing HYUFD continues to post after that embarrassing drivel of just two days ago. His credibility is currently on the floor and falling.
Everyone is entitled to post no matter whether or not they have your approval
Thank you BigG, this blog to be effective needs all views from socialist to very right-wing (provided not far right) to Unionist and Scottish Nationalist, Green, Liberal, diehard Remainer and diehard Leaver to be effective as a betting site on politics
If you want to know what the average person thinks about anything, take a look at Twitter and it'll be the opposite of whatever people on there are saying.
It's amazing HYUFD continues to post after that embarrassing drivel of just two days ago. His credibility is currently on the floor and falling.
Everyone is entitled to post no matter whether or not they have your approval
Thank you BigG, this blog to be effective needs all views from socialist to very right-wing (provided not far right) to Unionist and Scottish Nationalist, Green, Liberal, diehard Remainer and diehard Leaver to be effective as a betting site on politics
I can't wait to see who you perceive to be a Communist, anyone to the left of Thatcher?
If you want to know what the average person thinks about anything, take a look at Twitter and it'll be the opposite of whatever people on there are saying.
Well then Labour must be united!
But alas not, I am wondering what we have done since May to appear more divided
Thanks to the morons on Twitter, Labour is now seen as more divided, well done cranks!
Given many respondents will not themselves be on twitter, I would not blame twitter for Labour being seen to be more divided, I'd blame that it actually is more divided.
What could the reasons for this increase be do you think?
Last cry of rage of the Corbynite membership, in frustration at the leadership, responding that their party is divided.
I honestly don’t see how this is likely to go anywhere. Sentences should only be changed if the judge made a clear mistake, e.g. giving someone six months for robbery with violence. I can’t see the court of appeal will consider 16 years for a near juvenile offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter ‘unduly lenient’.
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
It will play well in the Red Wall certainly
Is the point of the criminal justice system to ‘play well in the Red Wall?’
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
As a government elected on a tough on law and order message yes, in the US that would be taken as given.
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
We’re not in the US. Judges are appointed to uphold the law, not elected at the whim of the people.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
This government was elected to deliver the will of the people, judges are not immune
Judges are not the barrier to delivering the 'will of the people' that they are in the US. Even if that was a justification for undermining the judiciary, you don't need to take down our judges to get past their 'interference', government usually just needs to draft its legislation better taking note of the impacts of other legislation which might need to be amended.
Judges are elected in the US at the state levels and have to listen to the people to get elected, who knows what Cummings has up his sleeve?
If they listened to the people, Dominic Cummings would probably have been executed by now.
Which would be excessive for what he did. A five thousand quid fine and a twelve month driving ban would have met the case.
Anyway, PB is not loading and my eyelids are closing.
Comments
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1296913256364347393
Nigel laying in
Trump will undoubtedly promise bread, circuses, free beer and lots of guns to everyone who votes for him.
I would like him to lose, but I am pinning my hopes on term limits rather than Biden
As to the remainder of it, who knows? These projects are so agonizingly slow to complete that the final yea or nay can probably be dumped on the desk of Johnson's successor. Or the Prime Minister after that.
But I take your point. The primary justification used for HS2 by its supporters is the improvement in capacity, rather than speed. If half the existing passenger capacity is freed up by permanent mass WFH, then the central plank of their argument is removed (and the same can probably be said of Crossrail 2, which nobody will be in a hurry to break ground on after the continual delays and out of control costs of Crossrail 1.)
If the Government is concerned about having its commitment to the North and the levelling up agenda brought into question by shunting the remainder of HS2 into the long grass of review, then it might be better off injecting a bit of impetus into the improvement of the Transpennine routes instead.
Exception: a small number of staff with no comfortable home working space are very disappointed and there's talk of perhaps opening the office to enable them to work there.
Have heard zero explanation for this faux pas BUT certainly sounds like SERIOUS incompetence. Of course we know that today/s Republican Party IS a criminal clown college.
BTW, risks of missing such legal deadlines are WELL KNOWN in states where petition gathering for ballot measures is commonplace. Such as the Badger State, where Robert "Fighting Bob" LaFollette introduced initiatives and referenda in 1890s (IIRC) as means of allowing people to legislate directly, to circumvent the political control & corruption of the legislature by trusts and other special interests.
Note that in WA State about twenty years ago, sponsors of a statewide initiative failed to deliver hundreds of thousands of signatures on time. Deadline was 4.30pm at Secretary of State's office in Olympia.
Organizer with the petitions left Seattle early afternoon - and got stuck in a big traffic jam on I-5 (a common occurrence) and arrived about 5 minutes late. The sponsors went to court, but judge turned them down flat.
Also BTW, the Kanye West "campaign" also failed to qualify for the ballot in Illinois (his home state). This despite fact that, due to COVID, signature requirement for 3rd- party presidential hopefuls was reduced from 25,000 valid voter signatures down to 2,500. Upon scrutiny, turned out that KW's GOP hacks submitted fewer than half that measly requirement.
KW's ballot access has been denied (for lateness, bogus sigs, etc) in:
> Illinois, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, West Virginia
So far Putinists have qualified their stodge (Kanye that is) in following states:
> Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont (5)
Deadlines are still to come in:
> Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming (8)
Utterly pathetic
Well I think he seems a decent guy
If I were cynical I would say this is more political posturing exploiting Mrs Harper’s quite understandable feeling that having taken her husband’s life these people should be banged up for good to bolster Tory credentials on law and order.
However I still think it will be close, Biden has had his bounce now from the Democratic convention and Trump will likely get some bounce after the Republican convention next week, even if the bounce is smaller than normal as they are online
Whomp whomp
At this stage there are two options, both disagreeable: Cave-in or crash-out. Crash-out is obviously worse, by a country mile, so anything which shows the numpties are waking up to the impending disaster is much to be welcomed. We just have to hope that the government is not too far behind the Daily Express in understanding the situation.
That's the entire rationale behind Trumpky's legal gobbledegook.
To put it another way, for what conceivable reason would the Government tell the widow "we think this is a fool's errand, go away"?
(Moreover, I would point out that the judges refusing to change the sentence might play worse than doing nothing.)
I also think that those who are particularly good with visuals can get away with slack on writing and plot (I note the BBC review does say it is predictable), especially if they make it confusing (and thus, 'deep').
If they're accepting No Deal will be a catastrophe - which with our economy in the toilet I don't know why you'd do anything that might make that worse, especially something you have control over - then that's fine but they need to stick to it.
I hope Johnson capitulates and we join EEA soon.
Back in 2016, the Republican convention was a shit-show. Maybe it impressed some swing voters, but methinks many more who voted for Trumpsky in 2016 did so DESPITE that years GOP convo rather than because of it.
Does anyone know, what bump (if any) Trumpsky got post-RNC in 2016?
If the judges uphold the sentence then Cummings can just blame them the Attorney General having done all she can to increase their sentence
The latter possibly, but the former?
Given the government wants to go after judges anyway, anything that might make a court unpopular is probably approved of though.
Inception is a brilliant masterpiece.
I think The Prestige is underrated.
There’s also a certain irony in Dominic Cummings being involved in anything to do with unduly lenient sentences.
I am however very uneasy at the strong probability, obliquely confirmed by the Tories’ cheerleader in chief, that this referral is about spinning the government as tough on crime rather than a cold-eyed assessment of the case.
That said, I wasn't even aware things were apparently so secretive with PM holiday locations and it surprises me, but referencing back to another political age hardly speaks to the reasonableness of such secrecy.
It's very late here in the Chelyabinsk warehouse and I wanted to go home but now I have to do an extra post on this forum because of you.
Yes they behaved appallingly in the court but why does that impact what their sentence is? The sentence should fit the crime, we don't punish for the sake of it in this country.
Your last point is probably valid and somewhat disturbing.
AND please give my regards to Valdi!
Especially as am now 99.44% certain that "stodge" is really JARED KUSHNER!!!
Meanwhile, we have somebody on here boasting about how judges need to be brought under the control of politicians and popular will. Well, mob rule is not justice. Mob rule would have seen Harvey Proctor lynched.
I found the Trump convention far more exciting than the Romney convention which was like a widget makers conference.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/03/trump-clinton-unpopularity-2016-election-prediction-winner
Sometimes it can be necessary to root and branch things, tweaking stuff will not always address key issues. However, tweaking things gradually has actually worked pretty well for the British constitution, and my instinct is it is a rare issue that needs truly dramatic resolutions in order to solve the identified problems.
The difficulty is incremental or proportionate fixes are not sexy campaign promises, you don't get plaudits for your sensible gradual reform of something while in office, so politicians have a tendency to shoot big, miss obvious fixes, let perfect be the enemy of the good, and yet somehow also avoid the places where really substantial change really is needed until it is too late, because those are the more controversial bits.
Which would be excessive for what he did. A five thousand quid fine and a twelve month driving ban would have met the case.
Anyway, PB is not loading and my eyelids are closing.
I wish the company a pleasant night’s repose.
The party is in general less divided in terms of the PLP than it has been for some time but a small group of MPs continue to attack the leadership and this is a big problem.
Starmer needs to make a statement and EHRC will give him grounds to make necessary changes
Lab improvements on economy and crime are encouraging
But alas not, I am wondering what we have done since May to appear more divided
He who is without sin first cast the stone
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1296920706639421441?s=20