Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Enemies within? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 11 in General
Enemies within? – politicalbetting.com

Asylum seekers in Channel pic.twitter.com/vuUdNjw6vc

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    1st.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    FPT:

    I say again, Covid will destroy Johnson's premiership.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 36,505
    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 22,106

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
  • MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Anyone else expect Metro mayors to have their powers clipped after this?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,479
    My goodness, the shock at the novel view that the democratically-elected Government should make policy according to the wishes of their voters, rather than those of the legal establishment...
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 1,753
    What a load of prolix and irrelevant old bollocks. Sorry, Cyclefree. Get an editor, and rein it in
  • sirclivesirclive Posts: 81
    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    So says king of flip-flop Burnham. A week ago he was in support of the 3 tier system - provided local leaders had a say. A euphemism for 'give me all the cash you can and i will agree'. Also wanted off-licences to close at 9pm as well as pubs at 10pm. Now he sees the public backlash and wants to get ahead of it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,639
    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 1,753
    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
  • LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 283
    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 49,021

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Seems kinda pointless to have STV there.
  • LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
    Thumbs up emoji
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    edited October 11
    RobD said:

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Seems kinda pointless to have STV there.
    It gives people hope!
  • O/T. Any chance you could remove the standard footer "Comments are closed" when they aren't? It's triggering my OCD.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679
    I certainly don't trust this government when it comes to management of the legal system, but the hostility has been going on for quite some time.

    That said, I think cyclefree does make a serious point even for those who are perfectly content with what the government is seeking to do in various areas, as follows:

    The distinction between ends and means will be of little or no concern to such people, “how” one achieves the desired goal being irrelevant so long as the goal is reached.

    For me, process is very important, even for the things I want to happen and while there will be occasions when you need to cut through the weeds, as it were, the times that is required is less frequent than supposed. A blustering, and blunt, path to the goal is often not necessary, and can have negative unforeseen consequences, and foreseen consequences at that when one considers precedent set. So when rule of law is concerned it pays to be cautious, as the near unfettered power of parliament is something that parliament should be careful with.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 1,753

    LadyG said:

    What a load of prolix and irrelevant old bollocks. Sorry, Cyclefree. Get an editor, and rein it in

    Not only are you a very rude young lady, but if you took the time to read Cyclefree's header it covers much detail in a number of paragraphs. It is lengthy, yet pithy and to the point.
    You literally cannot be pithy and lengthy. The lovely Ms Cyclefree needs to learn that the best journalism is the equivalent of a thrilling knee trembler, in a phone box, on coke: brief but wild, and remembered as such
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,639

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Yes. Seriously outpolled the natural Labour vote by a distance.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Sorry Cyclefree but some seem to want to use law to fight political battles to get their own way rather than for the sake of the rule of law.

    When that happens it is inevitable that politicians will get involved and fight battles too. Because politics is where political issues are meant to be resolved, not the court room.

    If the courts get involved with political decision making, rather than enforcing the law, then the courts will inevitably get politicised. We will end up with parties seeking to get Judges that will enforce the law how they want it to be enforced, rather than enforcing the law as it is.

    And that will be the death of an impartial "rule of law".

    If you want to have a go at the law being politicised, maybe level some criticism at the likes of Jolyon Maugham QC and others that are continually trying to refight issues on Brexit and elsewhere through the courts, since they lost in the ballot box. When that continues to happen it is absolutely inevitable that politicians will get involved, because sort out political disputes is what politicians are elected to do.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    edited October 11
    An interesting header.

    Yes, the pandora's box Johnson and Patel are opening for short term political gain, could have long term implications, and you have explained what those implications could be.

    I recall a few days after Cox's execution, Nigel Farage braved the crowds and claimed a revolution had been won (Brexit) and not a drop of blood had been spilt. I fear Johnson and his friends are blind to the cans of worms they open.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,482

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
    I like Andy Burnham, but he's not PM material. (His party have said so twice - and perhaps more - after all)

    He seems to have no strong views, but is big on good intentions.

    If more say/consulting is given to the regions he's going to find himself under pressure anyway.

  • MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Anyone else expect Metro mayors to have their powers clipped after this?
    What powers?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 18,643
    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Point 1 - I know. Immigration lawyers know this. Judging by her speeches the Home Secretary does not.

    Point 2 - this is not what the Stevens Inquiry found ( In any case, it is irrelevant: a Minister should not be saying anything which might encourage another to commit violence or lead them to believe that they are doing what the government wants, even if it cannot say so openly.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Sorry Cyclefree but some seem to want to use law to fight political battles to get their own way rather than for the sake of the rule of law.

    When that happens it is inevitable that politicians will get involved and fight battles too. Because politics is where political issues are meant to be resolved, not the court room.

    If the courts get involved with political decision making, rather than enforcing the law, then the courts will inevitably get politicised. We will end up with parties seeking to get Judges that will enforce the law how they want it to be enforced, rather than enforcing the law as it is.

    And that will be the death of an impartial "rule of law".

    If you want to have a go at the law being politicised, maybe level some criticism at the likes of Jolyon Maugham QC and others that are continually trying to refight issues on Brexit and elsewhere through the courts, since they lost in the ballot box. When that continues to happen it is absolutely inevitable that politicians will get involved, because sort out political disputes is what politicians are elected to do.

    ...and your post started off so well!
  • MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Anyone else expect Metro mayors to have their powers clipped after this?
    What powers?
    Burnham actually has a fair amount of power over health, social services & transport.

    Not remotely enough, but he does have a fair amount of local power on many important areas.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 56,679

    Sorry Cyclefree but some seem to want to use law to fight political battles to get their own way rather than for the sake of the rule of law.

    When that happens it is inevitable that politicians will get involved and fight battles too. Because politics is where political issues are meant to be resolved, not the court room.

    If the courts get involved with political decision making, rather than enforcing the law, then the courts will inevitably get politicised. We will end up with parties seeking to get Judges that will enforce the law how they want it to be enforced, rather than enforcing the law as it is.

    And that will be the death of an impartial "rule of law".

    If you want to have a go at the law being politicised, maybe level some criticism at the likes of Jolyon Maugham QC and others that are continually trying to refight issues on Brexit and elsewhere through the courts, since they lost in the ballot box. When that continues to happen it is absolutely inevitable that politicians will get involved, because sort out political disputes is what politicians are elected to do.

    Two wrongs do not make a right of course. People do want to fight political battles in the courts, and some judges may even step over the line on occasion, but the solution to that issue would need to be proportionate, but some flail out wildly, seeming to seek retribution on the system instead, which is not a considered approach. That opinion on the issue swings back and forth depending on how judges rule on an issue is already of concern enough. I hope the government does not go too far, as some will want them to, as I don't think that is good for politics either, in the end.

    Good night everyone.
  • Omnium said:

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
    I like Andy Burnham, but he's not PM material. (His party have said so twice - and perhaps more - after all)

    He seems to have no strong views, but is big on good intentions.

    If more say/consulting is given to the regions he's going to find himself under pressure anyway.

    I doubt he will ever be PM.

    But he needs powers devolved.

    His area has a similar population to Wales with a much larger economy, he needs the powers that are appropriate to such a position.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,639
    Omnium said:

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
    He seems to have no strong views, but is big on good intentions.

    Can think of another who has no strong views. But isn't particularly big on good intentions.
    Know which one I'd prefer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553
    Good header again, Cyclefree.

    It would be good to hear rather more from the opposition on both parliamentary challenge to the executive, and basic respect for the rule of law.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,230
    @Cyclefree - it is a good header. It points out all the features you can expect a Banana Republic to have in its legal system as groups are singled out to be the "enemy" and distract from the issues of the day that the incompetents in charge do not want discussed.

    The Covid / Brexit situations must be very bad if they have to descend to this level to distract their core voters.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,847
    edited October 11
    Starmer has been crap on Covid - unfailingly supporting the govt, then moaning when it didn’t go well, and his flip flopping on the curfew was really odd... but what is that hashtag all about? I don’t get it

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 4,482
    dixiedean said:

    Omnium said:

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
    He seems to have no strong views, but is big on good intentions.

    Can think of another who has no strong views. But isn't particularly big on good intentions.
    Know which one I'd prefer.
    I presume you mean Boris.

    I think he'll do better than you think - that may of course be a low bar.

    Whatever you think of him, this is a tough time to be PM, and to have been hit by illness in the midst of it makes it doubly tough.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Cyclefree said:



    My goodness, the shock at the novel view that the democratically-elected Government should make policy according to the wishes of their voters, rather than those of the legal establishment...

    That is very precisely the opposite of what I wrote.

    Why are people being attacked for doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist?

    Why are Ministers putting people at real risk of attack when it is their duty to maintain law and order not foment it?

    I don't think anyone is encouraging violence.

    But politicians get attacked for "doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist" all the freaking time by people who dislike them. Does Starmer place nicely nicely with Boris?

    If lawyers want to step into the realm of politics then being attacked goes with the territory.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    What a load of prolix and irrelevant old bollocks. Sorry, Cyclefree. Get an editor, and rein it in

    Not only are you a very rude young lady, but if you took the time to read Cyclefree's header it covers much detail in a number of paragraphs. It is lengthy, yet pithy and to the point.
    You literally cannot be pithy and lengthy. The lovely Ms Cyclefree needs to learn that the best journalism is the equivalent of a thrilling knee trembler, in a phone box, on coke: brief but wild, and remembered as such
    Of course one can be lengthy and pithy. Many, many points were made concisely. Lengthy and pithy.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 283
    edited October 11
    Cyclefree said:

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Point 1 - I know. Immigration lawyers know this. Judging by her speeches the Home Secretary does not.

    Point 2 - this is not what the Stevens Inquiry found ( In any case, it is irrelevant: a Minister should not be saying anything which might encourage another to commit violence or lead them to believe that they are doing what the government wants, even if it cannot say so openly.
    Actually it is relevant.

    'Ministerial words have resulted in attacks on lawyers before: see the Stevens Inquiry’s findings about Home Office Minister Douglas Hogg’s accusations about NI lawyer, Patrick Finucane, murdered by Loyalists shortly afterwards in February 1989.'

    I'm telling you Douglas Hogg's words did not lead to the attack on Pat Finuance, which is entirely explicit in your words above.

    Lets get some facts. I knew exactly who Pat Finucane was well before 1989 and I knew he was a target. People from loyalist areas of Belfast, who had no involvement with the paramilitaries, knew who he was and knew he was a target. The police knew he was a target. He knew he was a target because he knew loyalist groups had been scouting & targeting him. He has been told he was a target. Loyalist groups were not behind the door is saying they wanted to kill him.

    If your point was that Douglas Hogg's comments could be seen as encouragement and were irresponsible, fine, but it wasn't. Your phraseology was that Hogg's comments LED to the attack on Pat Finucane. That is utter bullshit. Anyone with a rudimental understanding of how things worked, the timelines, and Finucanes profile and history knows that.

    And no point did the above comments from Steven's say Hogg's comments led to the attack.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553
    .
    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,639
    Omnium said:

    dixiedean said:

    Omnium said:

    LadyG said:

    dixiedean said:

    MaxPB said:

    Suddenly the Right like Judges again!!! Strange times my friends, strange times...

    It also shows the difference between Burnham and Sadiq. Burnham is sticking up for the businesses and employees of the North, Sadiq is egging the government on to shut everything down. Good on Burnham.
    Burnham is actually showing how to oppose.
    It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
    It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
    Burnham is having a good plague, even if he is duplicitous. He politicks well
    He's a job for life

    2017...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
    Assuming he has no ambitions higher than Manchester Mayor.

    He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
    He seems to have no strong views, but is big on good intentions.

    Can think of another who has no strong views. But isn't particularly big on good intentions.
    Know which one I'd prefer.
    I presume you mean Boris.

    I think he'll do better than you think - that may of course be a low bar.

    Whatever you think of him, this is a tough time to be PM, and to have been hit by illness in the midst of it makes it doubly tough.
    Well indeed. It must be horrendously difficult.
    However, having "No strong views" can often be a strength, not a weakness. See John Major as an example. Arguably Cameron and Wilson too.
    Having good intentions is, I would argue, always a positive, whatever the situation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Cyclefree said:

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Point 1 - I know. Immigration lawyers know this. Judging by her speeches the Home Secretary does not.

    Point 2 - this is not what the Stevens Inquiry found ( In any case, it is irrelevant: a Minister should not be saying anything which might encourage another to commit violence or lead them to believe that they are doing what the government wants, even if it cannot say so openly.
    Ministers aren't calling for violence though, if they were I'm sure you'd have quoted it.

    Every time that someone attacks Boris is that calling for violence against him? If someone attacks Starmer is that calling for violence?

    Keep a sense of proportion. People attack their political opponents.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 2,953

    Cyclefree said:



    My goodness, the shock at the novel view that the democratically-elected Government should make policy according to the wishes of their voters, rather than those of the legal establishment...

    That is very precisely the opposite of what I wrote.

    Why are people being attacked for doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist?

    Why are Ministers putting people at real risk of attack when it is their duty to maintain law and order not foment it?

    I don't think anyone is encouraging violence.

    But politicians get attacked for "doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist" all the freaking time by people who dislike them. Does Starmer place nicely nicely with Boris?

    If lawyers want to step into the realm of politics then being attacked goes with the territory.
    How are you defining "stepping into the realm of politics"? Any individual has a right to legal representation when the State seeks to take action against them in courts or otherwise. Are you saying that wherever this state action is in a controversial area of political debate then any lawyer meeting that right to representation is fair game for attack from politicians? And that if they aren't prepared for that then their client should go unrepresented?
  • YokesYokes Posts: 283
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    alex_ said:

    Cyclefree said:



    My goodness, the shock at the novel view that the democratically-elected Government should make policy according to the wishes of their voters, rather than those of the legal establishment...

    That is very precisely the opposite of what I wrote.

    Why are people being attacked for doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist?

    Why are Ministers putting people at real risk of attack when it is their duty to maintain law and order not foment it?

    I don't think anyone is encouraging violence.

    But politicians get attacked for "doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist" all the freaking time by people who dislike them. Does Starmer place nicely nicely with Boris?

    If lawyers want to step into the realm of politics then being attacked goes with the territory.
    How are you defining "stepping into the realm of politics"? Any individual has a right to legal representation when the State seeks to take action against them in courts or otherwise. Are you saying that wherever this state action is in a controversial area of political debate then any lawyer meeting that right to representation is fair game for attack from politicians? And that if they aren't prepared for that then their client should go unrepresented?
    Of course people have the right to representation, but some lawyers use the profession to try to further their own political agenda . . . and aren't discrete about that.

    If someone is using the law for poltical purposes then that is politics. And even worse it risks bringing the whole legal system into the political sphere with parties seeking to get partisan control over the legal profession and judiciary and Supreme Court as we see in the USA.
  • LadyGLadyG Posts: 1,753
    isam said:
    This very much suggests we are shutting down entire regions, and ruining their economies, to defend the health of kids who will never get sick
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,978
    Thanks, Cyclefree - the rhetorical stance of the Home Secretary is jusy embarrassing, and the policies even worse.

    By the way, belated thanks to TSE for the clever last thread. I'd quite forgotten that Margaret Beckett (who I like) was 3rd favourite as next PM just 12 months ago.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,553
    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 1,202
    Chuck Todd talks about the potential for the closeness of the Federal Presidential and Congressional elections to impact the outcome of 86 state house elections in 44 states - i.e. the usual top of the ticket races impacting the down ticket races.

    I have wondered all year about the potential for that relationship to be the other way around - the potential for the (Democratic Party) energy going into the state house elections for control over redistricting to impact the Federal election outcomes across the board.

    If more energy is going into getting people out to vote for these state house elections, particularly on the Democratic side, that presumably will translate up ticket too.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/republicans-risk-losing-texas-florida-arizona-state-houses-n1242842
    Flag Quote · Off Topic Like
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    LadyG said:

    isam said:
    This very much suggests we are shutting down entire regions, and ruining their economies, to defend the health of kids who will never get sick
    No it does not. That is a significant rise in the orange graph and the escalating case numbers in hospital are not kids.

    If the orange graph was a flat line you'd be right. It isn't.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 283
    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    Again, that wasn't what was said in Cyclesfree post, in fact not anywhere near it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466
    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 587
    An excellent header, Cyclefree, thanks - I agree with all of it. And those who don't are generally partisan supporters of the government's cavalier attitude towards the law and justice, in its broadest sense. Johnson's and Patel's language, particularly on migration/asylum, is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and is just dog whistling on complex issues. As in the USA and elsewhere, the extreme right grows in confidence when this sort of language is used.

    The denigration of "do-gooders" is notable - since when was it a crime to try to do good? And if the government thinks doing good is not worthwhile, why on earth have they allowed Marcus Rashford to receive an honour?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    isam said:

    Starmer has been crap on Covid - unfailingly supporting the govt, then moaning when it didn’t go well, and his flip flopping on the curfew was really odd... but what is that hashtag all about? I don’t get it

    The polling since April 4th, would seem to contradict that point of view.

    To be honest, were it the case that the LOTO had been useless, it wouldn't matter. The fact that the PM has been worse than useless has been an extremely worrying matter of life and death.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    Why? Is it acceptable to attack your political opponents or not?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 22,324

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    5 is generous.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    Why? Is it acceptable to attack your political opponents or not?
    Finucane was killed on the back of a casual comment from a politician.

    Michael Foot wittering on about the General Belgrano was not an invitation for the IRA to plant an incendiary device in the Grand Hotel, Brighton.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 283

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    Why? Is it acceptable to attack your political opponents or not?
    Finucane was killed on the back of a casual comment from a politician.

    Michael Foot wittering on about the General Belgrano was not an invitation for the IRA to plant an incendiary device in the Grand Hotel, Brighton.
    No he wasn't. He was a long term target of loyalist terror groups.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 6,964
    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    Why? Is it acceptable to attack your political opponents or not?
    Finucane was killed on the back of a casual comment from a politician.

    Michael Foot wittering on about the General Belgrano was not an invitation for the IRA to plant an incendiary device in the Grand Hotel, Brighton.
    No he wasn't. He was a long term target of loyalist terror groups.
    Follow down thread for the citation.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 283
    edited October 11

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    Why? Is it acceptable to attack your political opponents or not?
    Finucane was killed on the back of a casual comment from a politician.

    Michael Foot wittering on about the General Belgrano was not an invitation for the IRA to plant an incendiary device in the Grand Hotel, Brighton.
    No he wasn't. He was a long term target of loyalist terror groups.
    Follow down thread for the citation.
    And at no point did that citation state that Hoggs comments were the trigger for the killing of Finucane.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,901
    One of the strengths of the criminal justice system in this country is the fact lay people ultimately decide the outcome. The judge only directs in law.
    In the case of an immigration decision I believe the judge is effectively the jury too.
    Maybe a system of having lay person input would benefit the immigration system. There's definitely a sense it is run by lawyers, for lawyers.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 8,639

    An excellent header, Cyclefree, thanks - I agree with all of it. And those who don't are generally partisan supporters of the government's cavalier attitude towards the law and justice, in its broadest sense. Johnson's and Patel's language, particularly on migration/asylum, is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and is just dog whistling on complex issues. As in the USA and elsewhere, the extreme right grows in confidence when this sort of language is used.

    The denigration of "do-gooders" is notable - since when was it a crime to try to do good? And if the government thinks doing good is not worthwhile, why on earth have they allowed Marcus Rashford to receive an honour?

    See my above or below convo. "Big on good intentions ".
    When was that never a positive?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    Nigelb said:

    Yokes said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Yokes said:

    On topic

    1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.

    2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.

    Did our own Prime Minister not apologise for state collusion with those murderous dogs ?
    That collusion went on was fact, the complexity of it is shocking yet not surprising. That the comments of Douglas Hogg were the trigger (i.e. led) to the killing of Pat Finuance is fantasy land.
    That may well be the case.
    But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
    The IRA literally tried to murder Thatcher. They succeeding in murdering some of her colleagues.

    Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
    2 +2 have made 5 in that post Philip.
    Why? Is it acceptable to attack your political opponents or not?
    Finucane was killed on the back of a casual comment from a politician.

    Michael Foot wittering on about the General Belgrano was not an invitation for the IRA to plant an incendiary device in the Grand Hotel, Brighton.
    What's sauce for the goose is good for the gander.

    The IRA did what they wanted, so too did the loyalists.

    What Hoggs said wasn't the trigger any more than any attacks on Thatcher were the trigger. Those who resort to violence are responsible for what they do.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    An excellent header, Cyclefree, thanks - I agree with all of it. And those who don't are generally partisan supporters of the government's cavalier attitude towards the law and justice, in its broadest sense. Johnson's and Patel's language, particularly on migration/asylum, is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and is just dog whistling on complex issues. As in the USA and elsewhere, the extreme right grows in confidence when this sort of language is used.

    The denigration of "do-gooders" is notable - since when was it a crime to try to do good? And if the government thinks doing good is not worthwhile, why on earth have they allowed Marcus Rashford to receive an honour?

    image
  • isam said:

    Starmer has been crap on Covid - unfailingly supporting the govt, then moaning when it didn’t go well, and his flip flopping on the curfew was really odd... but what is that hashtag all about? I don’t get it

    It was reported a couple of weeks ago, after yet another pasting at PMQs, that Boris had asked CCHQ for more anti-Starmer material. This is likely the result. The hashtag can mean whatever you like, if the main function is to satisfy Boris that SKS is being attacked, even if CCHQ staff know there is not another election due till 2024.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,479
    edited October 11
    This article is the most ridiculous sort of special pleading - lawyers, including, yes, lefty lawyers, can apparently do whatever they please for years on end to frustrate the wishes of the democratically-elected government, but the ministers of that government aren't allowed to say a word about it because ... lawyers are special, or something.

    The last time I checked, the legal establishment didn't have some special law that made it illegal to criticize them - and thank God for that!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 61,901
    edited October 12
    TimT said:

    Chuck Todd talks about the potential for the closeness of the Federal Presidential and Congressional elections to impact the outcome of 86 state house elections in 44 states - i.e. the usual top of the ticket races impacting the down ticket races.

    I have wondered all year about the potential for that relationship to be the other way around - the potential for the (Democratic Party) energy going into the state house elections for control over redistricting to impact the Federal election outcomes across the board.

    If more energy is going into getting people out to vote for these state house elections, particularly on the Democratic side, that presumably will translate up ticket too.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/republicans-risk-losing-texas-florida-arizona-state-houses-n1242842
    Flag Quote · Off Topic Like

    The willingness of GOP state legislatures, governors, justices in higher courts and to a certain degree even SCOTUS itself to go along with blatant voter supression - in particular by quoting the purcell case in almost 100% opposite direction to the actual intent of that case is the biggest reason ex Trump I hope they're all soundly thrashed up and downballot. I've been following this and the decisions of certain Trump appointed justices go against all principles of fairness and natural justice.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,479
    edited October 11

    isam said:

    Starmer has been crap on Covid - unfailingly supporting the govt, then moaning when it didn’t go well, and his flip flopping on the curfew was really odd... but what is that hashtag all about? I don’t get it

    It was reported a couple of weeks ago, after yet another pasting at PMQs, that Boris had asked CCHQ for more anti-Starmer material. This is likely the result. The hashtag can mean whatever you like, if the main function is to satisfy Boris that SKS is being attacked, even if CCHQ staff know there is not another election due till 2024.
    Another one thinking that the Government has to take any and all political criticism, but isn't allowed to return it...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 42,466

    This article is the most ridiculous sort of special pleading - lawyers, including, yes, lefty lawyers, can apparently do whatever they please for years on end to frustrate the wishes of the democratically-elected government, but the ministers of that government aren't allowed to say a word about it because ... lawyers are special, or something.

    The last time I checked, the legal establishment didn't have some special law that made it illegal to criticize them - and thank God for that!

    Precisely.

    Free speech is as important as any other principle. If you don't want to be criticised then don't give a reason to be criticised. Or stand up for yourself and justify yourself - aren't lawyers like politicians meant to be good at that.

    But to say that lawyers are fair game to try to abuse the legal system to get what they want, but shouldn't be criticised when they do? Give me a break.
  • This article is the most ridiculous sort of special pleading - lawyers, including, yes, lefty lawyers, can apparently do whatever they please for years on end to frustrate the wishes of the democratically-elected government, but the ministers of that government aren't allowed to say a word about it because ... lawyers are special, or something.

    The last time I checked, the legal establishment didn't have some special law that made it illegal to criticize them - and thank God for that!

    Precisely.

    Free speech is as important as any other principle. If you don't want to be criticised then don't give a reason to be criticised. Or stand up for yourself and justify yourself - aren't lawyers like politicians meant to be good at that.

    But to say that lawyers are fair game to try to abuse the legal system to get what they want, but shouldn't be criticised when they do? Give me a break.
    It begs the question to call it abusing, rather than using, the legal system.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 7,323
    "Coronavirus: WHO backflips on virus stance by condemning lockdowns

    Lockdowns have been used to control the coronavirus around the world. Now a WHO official has questioned the success of them."

    https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus-who-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/news-story/f2188f2aebff1b7b291b297731c3da74
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048
    kle4 said:

    I certainly don't trust this government when it comes to management of the legal system, but the hostility has been going on for quite some time.

    That said, I think cyclefree does make a serious point even for those who are perfectly content with what the government is seeking to do in various areas, as follows:

    The distinction between ends and means will be of little or no concern to such people, “how” one achieves the desired goal being irrelevant so long as the goal is reached.

    For me, process is very important, even for the things I want to happen and while there will be occasions when you need to cut through the weeds, as it were, the times that is required is less frequent than supposed. A blustering, and blunt, path to the goal is often not necessary, and can have negative unforeseen consequences, and foreseen consequences at that when one considers precedent set. So when rule of law is concerned it pays to be cautious, as the near unfettered power of parliament is something that parliament should be careful with.

    This is spot on.

    Successful organisations focus on process, not outcomes.

    Sadly, as a campaigning line it leaves much to be desired.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,048
    The inventor of the sexual innuendo passed away today.

    His wife is taking it really hard.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,815
    Andy_JS said:

    "Coronavirus: WHO backflips on virus stance by condemning lockdowns

    Lockdowns have been used to control the coronavirus around the world. Now a WHO official has questioned the success of them."

    https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus-who-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/news-story/f2188f2aebff1b7b291b297731c3da74

    We've done this on previous threads: He says “We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,”. But I don't think many pro-lockdown people advocate that either? (I know people use "lockdown" to mean different things.) Most people would say a lockdown is a last resort if less drastic things (work from home, wear masks, avoid heavy breathing in poorly-ventilated spaces) fail or aren't properly implemented.

    I guess the exception would be the Chinese model, where you lock everything down and try to effectively eliminate the virus, then open up again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 28,733

    LadyG said:

    LadyG said:

    What a load of prolix and irrelevant old bollocks. Sorry, Cyclefree. Get an editor, and rein it in

    Not only are you a very rude young lady, but if you took the time to read Cyclefree's header it covers much detail in a number of paragraphs. It is lengthy, yet pithy and to the point.
    You literally cannot be pithy and lengthy. The lovely Ms Cyclefree needs to learn that the best journalism is the equivalent of a thrilling knee trembler, in a phone box, on coke: brief but wild, and remembered as such
    Of course one can be lengthy and pithy. Many, many points were made concisely. Lengthy and pithy.
    He seems more intent on demonstrating that you can be concise and still have nothing worthwhile to say?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 759
    It seems to me that the headline data of concern to policy makers in the UK, are being driven by infection from two areas: students and hospitals. Both of which are the government’s fault, neither of which is particularly helped by a blunt lockdown.

    Students don’t get sick and die from this but people are scared they’ll spread it up the age curve. How? Well presumably by a) mixing with the locals, and b) going home. So institute a 21 and over rule in all non student bars / pubs in the university towns. And have something approaching more normal activity on campuses, to stem the tide of students who are already returning home.

    Hammering the parts of local economies that have little to no interaction with students makes no sense at all. And worse, they tricked students into showing up to virtual courses as a backdoor bail out of the universities, and they are now heading home disillusioned, seeding infection in the whole country. What a cluster.

    Others can comment more on why we’re still doing such a poor job of stopping hospital spread.
  • My goodness, the shock at the novel view that the democratically-elected Government should make policy according to the wishes of their voters, rather than those of the legal establishment...

    Exactly. They won a majority of 80 and that means they can sink asylum seeker boats and ignore the law.

    My only puzzlement in all this must be how your typical "I don't like the darkies" Tory voter feels about Patel. She says all the right things, has the right levels of cruelty to non-whites, but appears to not be British herself. Must be confusing for them.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,407
    Private polling found that many people were unable to recall the lengthier meaning of the Scottish government’s acronym, which has dominated public health messaging north of the border until now, and that the UK slogan was easier to follow.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-to-extend-health-campaign-as-snp-s-facts-slogan-leads-to-covid-confusion-lgg8qczdt
  • So? The SNP are as arrogant as the Tories - we won a big majority, we alone represent the best interests of our country, so we can do what we like.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 19,949

    My goodness, the shock at the novel view that the democratically-elected Government should make policy according to the wishes of their voters, rather than those of the legal establishment...

    Exactly. They won a majority of 80 and that means they can sink asylum seeker boats and ignore the law.

    My only puzzlement in all this must be how your typical "I don't like the darkies" Tory voter feels about Patel. She says all the right things, has the right levels of cruelty to non-whites, but appears to not be British herself. Must be confusing for them.
    I live in Patel's constituency, and I'm sure no-one here will be surprised that I've never voted for her! I have, though met her several times and I must say that on a personal level, in the constituency, she comes across as very pleasant. To be fair, as well, when I've contacted her on matters on which are not 'political' she's been very helpful, and I know of others to whom that applies. And that includes people to whom I suspect Mr P's rather unkind comment might apply.
    I get the feeling though, that she doesn't like being challenged.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,673
    BoZo is about to announce a 3 tier system with 7 tiers...

  • fox327fox327 Posts: 225

    This article is the most ridiculous sort of special pleading - lawyers, including, yes, lefty lawyers, can apparently do whatever they please for years on end to frustrate the wishes of the democratically-elected government, but the ministers of that government aren't allowed to say a word about it because ... lawyers are special, or something.

    The last time I checked, the legal establishment didn't have some special law that made it illegal to criticize them - and thank God for that!

    This article is the most ridiculous sort of special pleading - lawyers, including, yes, lefty lawyers, can apparently do whatever they please for years on end to frustrate the wishes of the democratically-elected government, but the ministers of that government aren't allowed to say a word about it because ... lawyers are special, or something.

    The last time I checked, the legal establishment didn't have some special law that made it illegal to criticize them - and thank God for that!

    It is true that lawyers are not above criticism. Nor are doctors, the medical establishment, and the NHS.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,032
    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo is about to announce a 3 tier system with 7 tiers...

    Screwed befor they start, by confusion and uncertainty.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,407

    So? The SNP are as arrogant as the Tories - we won a big majority, we alone represent the best interests of our country, so we can do what we like.
    Who in the SNP wrote her apology, told her to say she’d referred herself to the police when she hadn’t and then hung her out to dry when the public reaction was negative?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,100
    In a huge relief to New York Times columnists everywhere they have finally found their "both sides" take on the election

  • nichomar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    BoZo is about to announce a 3 tier system with 7 tiers...

    Screwed befor they start, by confusion and uncertainty.
    I've got Nick Ferrari on - he's a Tory and continues to be absolutely scathing about the abject chaos and confusion coming from the government. He points out that parts of the North East are about to be issued their 3rd set of rules in 10 days.

    With respect to Liverpool negotiating over restaurants etc staying open - there can't be local opt-outs from a national plan. Either the national plan gets given more steps (I know know, how about 5 tiers...) or the tiers are changed nationally.

    And before we have the usual people on here trying to say its all completely easy to understand, Ferrari has had a former Chief Constable on who says he hasn't got a clue and its completely unenforceable.
Sign In or Register to comment.