Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are duty bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are sury bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
Perhaps the greatest example of a 2nd career in politics after being on top of the greasy poll, is John Quincy Adams. Who was at best a so-so POTUS but proved to be an excellent, indeed great member of the House of Representatives.
Labour seems to be caught up in some sort of trans vs feminist civil war on twitter
Starmer made the politically naïve move of inserting himself into the TERF wars by backing self identification...and on the day that there is a court judgement involving a lady who is very vocal of her support that "women are women".
Its like the Vietnam of issues, as a politician you just aren't going to win, you are just going to get involved in fighting an unwinnable never ending war.
It seems particularly daft as Labour has supporters with all views on this. I don't think those on the right care very much tbh.
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are duty bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
She was a crap PM, a crap Home Secretary and is now a bitter and crap backbencher.
One problem with ex PMs not retiring is that whatever they say is clouded by being a giant sulk. Which it is. So even when she makes a good point, it still isn't taken as seriously because of who she is. She's burnt her bridges.
Same with Brown, Cameron, Blair etc after they stepped down. They just had the self respect to recognise it.
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are sury bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
Indeed. How Labour would have regretted Wilson leaving the Commons in 1970. Or Churchill in 1945. More so since none of them go to the Lords these days. Blair, Major and Brown occasionally have interesting points to make. And it is hard to argue they don't know what they are talking about, even if you profoundly disagree. They'd be more effective coming from the benches. Just occurred. How about making all ex-PM's who don't stand for election a non-voting MP in the Commons for Life?
Edit. Just realised I omitted Cameron. As he never adds owt. The exception that proves the rule. Has anyone fallen faster?
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are sury bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
Perhaps the greatest example of a 2nd career in politics after being on top of the greasy poll, is John Quincy Adams. Who was at best a so-so POTUS but proved to be an excellent, indeed great member of the House of Representatives.
I know these are different times, British politics rarely gives second chances now.
But for all my cynicism I respect the role of MP and I think it positive that May hasn't just gone off at first opportunity. She thinks she has something to offer the legislature.
Many will disagree, but I respect that she sees parliament as more than just a stepping stone to the top, and I dont think any past PMs should feel muzzled, especially when still in parliament.
And the idea staying and criticising is undignified is practically offensive - she's not sitting there spewing silly critiques 24/7.
Labour seems to be caught up in some sort of trans vs feminist civil war on twitter
Starmer made the politically naïve move of inserting himself into the TERF wars by backing self identification...and on the day that there is a court judgement involving a lady who is very vocal of her support that "women are women".
Its like the Vietnam of issues, as a politician you just aren't going to win, you are just going to get involved in fighting an unwinnable never ending war.
It seems particularly daft as Labour has supporters with all views on this. I don't think those on the right care very much tbh.
In my (limited) experience (via Mrs U and her friends), it seems a particular hot button issue among a certain demographic of women, often left leaning, educated middle class, and generally very big on feminist issue i.e. what has now become a core of Labour vote. And when I say hot button, I don't mean like moaning over the Tories, the Tories, the Tories, taxes should be higher to pay for the nurses or whatever, this can get really really heated.
When this breaks out, I rather sensibly take my drink and quietly decamp away from the blast zone....
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are sury bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
Perhaps the greatest example of a 2nd career in politics after being on top of the greasy poll, is John Quincy Adams. Who was at best a so-so POTUS but proved to be an excellent, indeed great member of the House of Representatives.
I know these are different times, British politics rarely gives second chances now.
But for all my cynicism I respect the role of MP and I think it positive that May hasn't just gone off at first opportunity. She thinks she has something to offer the legislature.
Many will disagree, but I respect that she sees parliament as more than just a stepping stone to the top, and I dont think any past PMs should feel muzzled, especially when still in parliament.
And the idea staying and criticising is undignified is practically offensive - she's not sitting there spewing silly critiques 24/7.
Interesting that no one has yet mentioned Ted Heath in this context. Until now!
A reminder that though we will obviously have people that die within 28 days of a Covid test, there'll be those who did die of Covid or complications just not within 28 days. This chap wouldn't be included in our Covid death stats for instance.
Labour seems to be caught up in some sort of trans vs feminist civil war on twitter
Starmer made the politically naïve move of inserting himself into the TERF wars by backing self identification...and on the day that there is a court judgement involving a lady who is very vocal of her support that "women are women".
Its like the Vietnam of issues, as a politician you just aren't going to win, you are just going to get involved in fighting an unwinnable never ending war.
It seems particularly daft as Labour has supporters with all views on this. I don't think those on the right care very much tbh.
In my (limited) experience (via Mrs U and her friends), it seems a particular hot button issue among a certain demographic of women, often left leaning, educated middle class, and generally very big on feminist issue i.e. what has now become a core of Labour vote. And when I say hot button, I don't mean like moaning over the Tories, the Tories, the Tories, taxes should be higher to pay for the nurses or whatever, this can get really really heated.
When this breaks out, I rather sensibly take my drink and quietly decamp away from the blast zone....
I have the same. I suspect from the rival camp. The vitriol is quite astonishing. I can think of no other issue quite so viscerally divisive.
Labour seems to be caught up in some sort of trans vs feminist civil war on twitter
Starmer made the politically naïve move of inserting himself into the TERF wars by backing self identification...and on the day that there is a court judgement involving a lady who is very vocal of her support that "women are women".
Its like the Vietnam of issues, as a politician you just aren't going to win, you are just going to get involved in fighting an unwinnable never ending war.
It seems particularly daft as Labour has supporters with all views on this. I don't think those on the right care very much tbh.
In my (limited) experience (via Mrs U and her friends), it seems a particular hot button issue among a certain demographic of women, often left leaning, educated middle class, and generally very big on feminist issue i.e. what has now become a core of Labour vote. And when I say hot button, I don't mean like moaning over the Tories, the Tories, the Tories, taxes should be higher to pay for the nurses or whatever, this can get really really heated.
When this breaks out, I rather sensibly take my drink and quietly decamp away from the blast zone....
I have the same. I suspect from the rival camp. The vitriol is quite astonishing. I can think of no other issue quite so viscerally divisive.
I think as a man, it is hard to fully appreciate this issue, as if it is a woman transitioning to become a man, I don't think it has anywhere near the (perceived) breath and scope of implications across the various aspects of life.
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are sury bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
Indeed. How Labour would have regretted Wilson leaving the Commons in 1970. Or Churchill in 1945. More so since none of them go to the Lords these days. Blair, Major and Brown occasionally have interesting points to make. And it is hard to argue they don't know what they are talking about, even if you profoundly disagree. They'd be more effective coming from the benches. Just occurred. How about making all ex-PM's who don't stand for election a non-voting MP in the Commons for Life?
Edit. Just realised I omitted Cameron. As he never adds owt. The exception that proves the rule. Has anyone fallen faster?
Bit in bold: That's just a clumsy way of reproducing the option of making them a Lord, which they seem to have collectively decided against since Thatcher. Probably a clear sign as any that the Lords can no longer serve its purpose if ex-PMs won't dignify the place with their presence.
SNP sending MPs and MSPs on manoeuvres to criticise the Scottish players and FA is very funny. Only a couple of days ago Oliver Dowden and the PM were meant to keep their opinions away from sport but here we are. I guess the SNP wish to show Liberal England how woke they are as a nation but fail to mask the authoritarian streak as they suggest Scottish football ‘rethinks’ it’s decision.
We’ve got to a ludicrous situation now where figures on the left care more about the knee than actual racism and on both sides we have England fans saying they’ll support Scotland and Scotland fans saying they’ll support England. What a complete mess and sideshow the whole thing has been.
SNP sending MPs and MSPs on manoeuvres to criticise the Scottish players and FA is very funny. Only a couple of days ago Oliver Dowden and the PM were meant to keep their opinions away from sport but here we are. I guess the SNP wish to show Liberal England how woke they are as a nation but fail to mask the authoritarian streak as they suggest Scottish football ‘rethinks’ it’s decision.
We’ve got to a ludicrous situation now where figures on the left care more about the knee than actual racism and on both sides we have England fans saying they’ll support Scotland and Scotland fans saying they’ll support England. What a complete mess and sideshow the whole thing has been.
Its all building up into a massive mess.
I said earlier I think the cricket had the right approach. No knee taking, some t-shirts with equality / diversity messages, but more importantly a statement that basically said, whoever you are, we want cricket to be your game. All very positive. No booing, and off to the game.
Their counter-culture is now The Culture so to be counter-culture today they'd need to be arguing for extremist nonsense like treating people as individuals as they come, accepting the realities of natural biology, conserving our heritage, and weird "out there" stuff like that.
No, you're thinking of the so-called woke stuff that Leon always goes on about. Green counter-culture is wearing recycled clothes, veganism, not having a car, soft drugs, that sort of thing.
You sure? Caroline Lucas for one seems keen never to be knowingly outwoked.
Out of curiousity why do greens never bemoan the loss of valuable resources by burning or burying bodies. Even if we don't want to eat them pigs would.
These resources aren't lost though. Nutrients are reabsorbed into soil and/or eaten by worms etc. Indeed, there is a method of woodland burial much favoured by greenness which speeds this process up, using nutrients from dead bodies to nourish woodlands, thereby supporting wildlife etc.
cremated bodies pretty much are lost
The carbon in our bodies is combined with O2 in the air to make CO2, which is essential food for plants.
I thought co2 in the atmosphere was meant to be a bad thing.....maybe I misunderstood
Well that's a whole new can of worms!
Burning a human body in that respect is no more environmentally harmful than burning a bonfire. Your carbon is all 'current' carbon. The reason burning fuels like coal is harmful is that this is 'historically carbon being returned to the atmosphere far too abruptly. Actually, I think it's the case that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is tremendously good news for plants and is resulting in regreening in areas like the fringes of the Sahara. A new balance will be found, and the planet will be fine. Whether humans will still have a a place on it is another matter!
Well greens I believe are against wood burning stoves too which is like a bonfire of current carbon
The Greens are against everything.
It's funny.
@Leon complains bitterly about how people support BLM, and how they wouldn't if they knew what BLM's real views were.
He then tells us he's voted (enthusiastically) for the Greens in the past, despite the fact that they are undisputedly ecofascists, under whose yoke it would be extremely unpleasant to live.
People don't look into the detailed policy positions of people they support shocker.
Labour seems to be caught up in some sort of trans vs feminist civil war on twitter
Starmer made the politically naïve move of inserting himself into the TERF wars by backing self identification...and on the day that there is a court judgement involving a lady who is very vocal of her support that "women are women".
Its like the Vietnam of issues, as a politician you just aren't going to win, you are just going to get involved in fighting an unwinnable never ending war.
It seems particularly daft as Labour has supporters with all views on this. I don't think those on the right care very much tbh.
In my (limited) experience (via Mrs U and her friends), it seems a particular hot button issue among a certain demographic of women, often left leaning, educated middle class, and generally very big on feminist issue i.e. what has now become a core of Labour vote. And when I say hot button, I don't mean like moaning over the Tories, the Tories, the Tories, taxes should be higher to pay for the nurses or whatever, this can get really really heated.
When this breaks out, I rather sensibly take my drink and quietly decamp away from the blast zone....
I have the same. I suspect from the rival camp. The vitriol is quite astonishing. I can think of no other issue quite so viscerally divisive.
SNP sending MPs and MSPs on manoeuvres to criticise the Scottish players and FA is very funny. Only a couple of days ago Oliver Dowden and the PM were meant to keep their opinions away from sport but here we are. I guess the SNP wish to show Liberal England how woke they are as a nation but fail to mask the authoritarian streak as they suggest Scottish football ‘rethinks’ it’s decision.
We’ve got to a ludicrous situation now where figures on the left care more about the knee than actual racism and on both sides we have England fans saying they’ll support Scotland and Scotland fans saying they’ll support England. What a complete mess and sideshow the whole thing has been.
This Englishman will be supporting England, as I suspect will 99% of my compatriots. The knee is a matter for the players: if they want to do it, fine, if they don’t, also fine.
It’s yet another ludicrous storm in teacup, stirred up by the risible culture warriors from left and right.
Their counter-culture is now The Culture so to be counter-culture today they'd need to be arguing for extremist nonsense like treating people as individuals as they come, accepting the realities of natural biology, conserving our heritage, and weird "out there" stuff like that.
No, you're thinking of the so-called woke stuff that Leon always goes on about. Green counter-culture is wearing recycled clothes, veganism, not having a car, soft drugs, that sort of thing.
You sure? Caroline Lucas for one seems keen never to be knowingly outwoked.
Out of curiousity why do greens never bemoan the loss of valuable resources by burning or burying bodies. Even if we don't want to eat them pigs would.
These resources aren't lost though. Nutrients are reabsorbed into soil and/or eaten by worms etc. Indeed, there is a method of woodland burial much favoured by greenness which speeds this process up, using nutrients from dead bodies to nourish woodlands, thereby supporting wildlife etc.
cremated bodies pretty much are lost
The carbon in our bodies is combined with O2 in the air to make CO2, which is essential food for plants.
I thought co2 in the atmosphere was meant to be a bad thing.....maybe I misunderstood
Well that's a whole new can of worms!
Burning a human body in that respect is no more environmentally harmful than burning a bonfire. Your carbon is all 'current' carbon. The reason burning fuels like coal is harmful is that this is 'historically carbon being returned to the atmosphere far too abruptly. Actually, I think it's the case that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is tremendously good news for plants and is resulting in regreening in areas like the fringes of the Sahara. A new balance will be found, and the planet will be fine. Whether humans will still have a a place on it is another matter!
Well greens I believe are against wood burning stoves too which is like a bonfire of current carbon
The problem with wood burning stoves is the particulates in the smoke.
I thought that wood smoke is basically particulates. There's nowt else.
Their counter-culture is now The Culture so to be counter-culture today they'd need to be arguing for extremist nonsense like treating people as individuals as they come, accepting the realities of natural biology, conserving our heritage, and weird "out there" stuff like that.
No, you're thinking of the so-called woke stuff that Leon always goes on about. Green counter-culture is wearing recycled clothes, veganism, not having a car, soft drugs, that sort of thing.
You sure? Caroline Lucas for one seems keen never to be knowingly outwoked.
Out of curiousity why do greens never bemoan the loss of valuable resources by burning or burying bodies. Even if we don't want to eat them pigs would.
These resources aren't lost though. Nutrients are reabsorbed into soil and/or eaten by worms etc. Indeed, there is a method of woodland burial much favoured by greenness which speeds this process up, using nutrients from dead bodies to nourish woodlands, thereby supporting wildlife etc.
cremated bodies pretty much are lost
The carbon in our bodies is combined with O2 in the air to make CO2, which is essential food for plants.
I thought co2 in the atmosphere was meant to be a bad thing.....maybe I misunderstood
Well that's a whole new can of worms!
Burning a human body in that respect is no more environmentally harmful than burning a bonfire. Your carbon is all 'current' carbon. The reason burning fuels like coal is harmful is that this is 'historically carbon being returned to the atmosphere far too abruptly. Actually, I think it's the case that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is tremendously good news for plants and is resulting in regreening in areas like the fringes of the Sahara. A new balance will be found, and the planet will be fine. Whether humans will still have a a place on it is another matter!
Well greens I believe are against wood burning stoves too which is like a bonfire of current carbon
The Greens are against everything.
It's funny.
@Leon complains bitterly about how people support BLM, and how they wouldn't if they knew what BLM's real views were.
He then tells us he's voted (enthusiastically) for the Greens in the past, despite the fact that they are undisputedly ecofascists, under whose yoke it would be extremely unpleasant to live.
People don't look into the detailed policy positions of people they support shocker.
I keep on hearing of hear of right-wing people who've voted for the Greens, and I wonder how the Greens can get so few votes overall. It must be that most of their potential left-wing voters end up voting tactically anti-Tory (which hasn't done much to stop the Tories winning overall still).
Their counter-culture is now The Culture so to be counter-culture today they'd need to be arguing for extremist nonsense like treating people as individuals as they come, accepting the realities of natural biology, conserving our heritage, and weird "out there" stuff like that.
No, you're thinking of the so-called woke stuff that Leon always goes on about. Green counter-culture is wearing recycled clothes, veganism, not having a car, soft drugs, that sort of thing.
You sure? Caroline Lucas for one seems keen never to be knowingly outwoked.
Out of curiousity why do greens never bemoan the loss of valuable resources by burning or burying bodies. Even if we don't want to eat them pigs would.
These resources aren't lost though. Nutrients are reabsorbed into soil and/or eaten by worms etc. Indeed, there is a method of woodland burial much favoured by greenness which speeds this process up, using nutrients from dead bodies to nourish woodlands, thereby supporting wildlife etc.
cremated bodies pretty much are lost
The carbon in our bodies is combined with O2 in the air to make CO2, which is essential food for plants.
I thought co2 in the atmosphere was meant to be a bad thing.....maybe I misunderstood
Well that's a whole new can of worms!
Burning a human body in that respect is no more environmentally harmful than burning a bonfire. Your carbon is all 'current' carbon. The reason burning fuels like coal is harmful is that this is 'historically carbon being returned to the atmosphere far too abruptly. Actually, I think it's the case that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is tremendously good news for plants and is resulting in regreening in areas like the fringes of the Sahara. A new balance will be found, and the planet will be fine. Whether humans will still have a a place on it is another matter!
Well greens I believe are against wood burning stoves too which is like a bonfire of current carbon
The problem with wood burning stoves is the particulates in the smoke.
Cremations dont produce particulates?
I think that the high temperature of cremation ovens greatly reduces particulates.
Not that I am an advocate of cremations. Woodland burial of the remains of my body for me, after the anatomy dept of my Medical School are finished with it.
I don't think they'll ever find my body, which should preserve an element of mystery.
Their counter-culture is now The Culture so to be counter-culture today they'd need to be arguing for extremist nonsense like treating people as individuals as they come, accepting the realities of natural biology, conserving our heritage, and weird "out there" stuff like that.
No, you're thinking of the so-called woke stuff that Leon always goes on about. Green counter-culture is wearing recycled clothes, veganism, not having a car, soft drugs, that sort of thing.
You sure? Caroline Lucas for one seems keen never to be knowingly outwoked.
Out of curiousity why do greens never bemoan the loss of valuable resources by burning or burying bodies. Even if we don't want to eat them pigs would.
These resources aren't lost though. Nutrients are reabsorbed into soil and/or eaten by worms etc. Indeed, there is a method of woodland burial much favoured by greenness which speeds this process up, using nutrients from dead bodies to nourish woodlands, thereby supporting wildlife etc.
cremated bodies pretty much are lost
The carbon in our bodies is combined with O2 in the air to make CO2, which is essential food for plants.
I thought co2 in the atmosphere was meant to be a bad thing.....maybe I misunderstood
Well that's a whole new can of worms!
Burning a human body in that respect is no more environmentally harmful than burning a bonfire. Your carbon is all 'current' carbon. The reason burning fuels like coal is harmful is that this is 'historically carbon being returned to the atmosphere far too abruptly. Actually, I think it's the case that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is tremendously good news for plants and is resulting in regreening in areas like the fringes of the Sahara. A new balance will be found, and the planet will be fine. Whether humans will still have a a place on it is another matter!
Well greens I believe are against wood burning stoves too which is like a bonfire of current carbon
The Greens are against everything.
It's funny.
@Leon complains bitterly about how people support BLM, and how they wouldn't if they knew what BLM's real views were.
He then tells us he's voted (enthusiastically) for the Greens in the past, despite the fact that they are undisputedly ecofascists, under whose yoke it would be extremely unpleasant to live.
People don't look into the detailed policy positions of people they support shocker.
I keep on hearing of hear of right-wing people who've voted for the Greens, and I wonder how the Greens can get so few votes overall. It must be that most of their potential left-wing voters end up voting tactically anti-Tory (which hasn't done much to stop the Tories winning overall still).
The Greens and the BNP are the only political parties I would definitely vote tactically against.
Labour seems to be caught up in some sort of trans vs feminist civil war on twitter
Starmer made the politically naïve move of inserting himself into the TERF wars by backing self identification...and on the day that there is a court judgement involving a lady who is very vocal of her support that "women are women".
Its like the Vietnam of issues, as a politician you just aren't going to win, you are just going to get involved in fighting an unwinnable never ending war.
It seems particularly daft as Labour has supporters with all views on this. I don't think those on the right care very much tbh.
In my (limited) experience (via Mrs U and her friends), it seems a particular hot button issue among a certain demographic of women, often left leaning, educated middle class, and generally very big on feminist issue i.e. what has now become a core of Labour vote. And when I say hot button, I don't mean like moaning over the Tories, the Tories, the Tories, taxes should be higher to pay for the nurses or whatever, this can get really really heated.
When this breaks out, I rather sensibly take my drink and quietly decamp away from the blast zone....
I have the same. I suspect from the rival camp. The vitriol is quite astonishing. I can think of no other issue quite so viscerally divisive.
I think as a man, it is hard to fully appreciate this issue, as if it is a woman transitioning to become a man, I don't think it has anywhere near the (perceived) breath and scope of implications across the various aspects of life.
Yes. I do think this is a curious aspect. There are plenty of female to male trans people. They seem to go unnoticed and uncommented on by and large.
Indeed. Not sure about this “bitter” narrative. Seems a PB thing.
She’s right.
I don't think it is PB, it's just what people expect of a former leader who sticks around, because we are no longer used to it. Any criticism she makes will be said to be her being bitter. And perhaps she is, but what's the alternative? She not raise matters when she thinks she should?
The alternative is to step down from Parliament with some dignity and let someone else fresh take the seat.
Yes, but why should that be mandatory? I think it is incredibly dumb and short sighted to act like former leaders have nothing to offer in parliament. Why should they not be able to continue to serve the public there?
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are sury bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
Indeed. How Labour would have regretted Wilson leaving the Commons in 1970. Or Churchill in 1945. More so since none of them go to the Lords these days. Blair, Major and Brown occasionally have interesting points to make. And it is hard to argue they don't know what they are talking about, even if you profoundly disagree. They'd be more effective coming from the benches. Just occurred. How about making all ex-PM's who don't stand for election a non-voting MP in the Commons for Life?
Edit. Just realised I omitted Cameron. As he never adds owt. The exception that proves the rule. Has anyone fallen faster?
Bit in bold: That's just a clumsy way of reproducing the option of making them a Lord, which they seem to have collectively decided against since Thatcher. Probably a clear sign as any that the Lords can no longer serve its purpose if ex-PMs won't dignify the place with their presence.
The Lords is a total waste of time, money, oxygen and space, yes.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the Times front page....delay of at least a month is the new plan now.
I don't really understand a delay.
Cases are going up really very rapidly now. If you think this will lead to substantial hospitalisations, and ultimately deaths, and you think the government should impose restrictions on liberty to prevent that, then you'd have to reverse the May 17th loosening to bring it under control. I'm not saying that would be a good idea, but it would at least be logically consistent.
And then, if you think the contrary, or at least that enough people are vaccinated that the NHS can cope with anything Delta can manage, then there's no reason to delay.
A delay would be yet more evidence of Johnson being unable to make a decision, of being incredibly weak and indecisive.
From NYT live blog of tonight's (Thur) New York City Democratic Primary Mayoral Debate.
> First question for Andrew Yang: Does Eric Adams live in New York City? Yang says Adams has not been straightforward. “He’s been attacking me from New Jersey,” Yang said. “His tour of the basement raised more questions than it answered.”
> After being the front-runner in available polling for months, Andrew Yang dropped to third in a recent poll as Eric Adams and Maya Wiley, who have been locked in a fight over crime and public safety, surged. Yang starts the debate going directly at Adams.
> Kathryn Garcia says she found the reports over where Eric Adams lives “confusing” and chooses to focus on her record as a crisis manager. “I’m the person who can deliver on impossible problems,” she says.
> Eric Adams is wearing a broad smile on his face as he says, “I live in Brooklyn, I live in Bedford-Stuyvesant”
> Eric Adams held an emotional news conference outside of the townhouse he owns in Bedford-Stuyvesant on Wednesday. He choked up for more than a minute, his lips quivering and a tear rolling down his face, as he explained that he became fiercely protective of his privacy when he was a police officer and someone shot at his car just after his son was born.
> Andrew Yang goes after Adams, saying he never held a Zoom forum from the Brooklyn basement apartment where he says he lives. Important to note that Yang has been criticized himself for living upstate at the height of the pandemic.
> Maya Wiley addresses a legislative proposal from Albany, which would significantly raise the bar for the police firing their weapons, and would require that the police only use lethal force as a “last resort.” This proposal has come under fierce criticism from the police, who say the new rules would make it much more difficult for officers to make split-second decisions during confrontations with suspects.
> “I don’t live in New Paltz,” Eric Adams said, a dig at Andrew Yang, who spent significant parts of the pandemic in the Hudson Valley and has been criticized by his rivals for it.
> Eric Adams mentions his partner, Tracey Collins, a former school principal, whom he shares a home with in Fort Lee, N.J. Several of the candidates have brought their spouses or children on the campaign trail. Not Mr. Adams. He has said that Ms. Collins is private and does not want to be involved in politics.
> For now, Eric Adams' residency question is coming down to perceptions: Is he evasive, ethically challenge? Or do his paperwork problems and late nights add up to something more ordinary and relatable, the eccentric habit of a man with a life devoted to work and politics and overflowing, like so many other people’s, with conflicting commitments to professional, personal and family life?
> In a repeat of the last debate, Andrew Yang says that as mayor, he would embark on a “massive recruitment drive for new police officers”
> Eric Adams has called for the return of the plain clothes police unit whose goal is to get guns off the street. He has also said stop-and-frisk is a tool that can be used legally and effectively. Maya Wiley has hammered at Adams over those points in the last few weeks.
> Maya Wiley continues to bank on the notion that at a time of rising shootings, New Yorkers want fewer cops, not more.
> Fifteen minutes into the debate, the questions have so far focused on whether Eric Adams lives in New York, the campaign topic of the week, and public safety, an issue that has defined the campaign for months now.
> The plain clothes police unit Eric Adams has proposed bringing back was disbanded last year by the police commissioner, who said the unit — which was routinely criticized for aggressive tactics and excessive force — contributed to distrust between the police and communities.
> The tone of this debate is much more calm than the last debate, where the candidates were talking over one another and ignoring the calls of moderators to stop speaking. Even the initial debate over Eric Adams’s residency was relatively calm compared with the frenetic opening hour of the last debate.
> Eric Adams decided to attend the debate and not go to the vigil for Justin Wallace, a 10-year-old fatally shot in Queens, because he felt that “attempts to politicize the memorial would be a painful distraction.” Andrew Yang’s co-campaign manager had accused Adams of trying to avoid the debate stage.
> Maya Wiley says Justin Wallace, a 10-year-old boy who was fatally shot, did not die because the city didn't have enough police officers. His death shows the need for “trauma-informed care,” she says.
> The candidates are asked how they would work with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has a knack for feuding with Mayor Bill de Blasio and overruling city decisions. “Nobody in Albany, when I’m mayor, will steal my lunch money,” Scott Stringer says.
I always thought ‘biopic’ rhymed with ‘myopic’ but heard it pronounced ‘bye-oh-pic’ yesterday. Which is correct?
I always thought the same. I think we were both wrong.
That's how I pronounce biopic, but also how I pronounce myopic. (Puzzled look)
Myo- rhyming with bio- suggests muscle, I think, which is not related to short-sightedness. Since being made redundant, I've spent a lot of time on Youtube, and it is surprising how many intelligent and erudite presenters mispronounce long words, even though using them correctly. I had thought that perhaps it came from a decline in reading aloud at school, but perhaps not.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the Times front page....delay of at least a month is the new plan now.
I don't really understand a delay.
Cases are going up really very rapidly now. If you think this will lead to substantial hospitalisations, and ultimately deaths, and you think the government should impose restrictions on liberty to prevent that, then you'd have to reverse the May 17th loosening to bring it under control. I'm not saying that would be a good idea, but it would at least be logically consistent.
And then, if you think the contrary, or at least that enough people are vaccinated that the NHS can cope with anything Delta can manage, then there's no reason to delay.
A delay would be yet more evidence of Johnson being unable to make a decision, of being incredibly weak and indecisive.
It will be seen as the strength of a leader willing to protect his people in defiance of the elites of business and luvvies like Andrew Lloyd Webber. It will be a net Tory gain. Expect c 50% polling incoming.
> Eric Adams says he’s going to put his ego aside and work with Andrew Cuomo for “team New York.” Andrew Yang says he has had “a number of calls” with the governor and touts his friendship with Cuomo’s brother, the CNN host Chris Cuomo.
> Since we’re talking about the governor: Last week, he said several times that he thought crime and public safety were the most important issues in the mayor’s race.
> In discussing his potential relationship with Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Andrew Yang says that the rest of the state needs New York City, given that it drives a significant share of the state’s economy. The rest of the state has rebounded better than the city so far. The unemployment rate in the city is 11.4 percent — about double what it is in the rest of the state.
> Maya Wiley has been one of the fiercest critics of Governor Andrew Cuomo and called on him to resign in response to allegations of sexual misconduct. She says she would work with the governor by organizing constituencies to put pressure on him.
> Eric Adams, burnishing his law enforcement profile, says that he’s “concerned about the marijuana laws altogether,” and supports restrictions on second-hand marijuana smoke.
> The topic turns to marijuana, which was recently legalized in New York. Eric Adams says it’s important to regulate where the drug can be smoked. Currently, it can be smoked wherever tobacco is allowed, but the city has the option to implement additional regulations designating where it can and cannot be smoked.
> In defending New York State’s legalization of marijuana, both Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia correctly point out that the vast majority of the people the Police Department arrests for marijuana-related offenses were overwhelmingly people of color.
> This debate is so far more orderly than the last one. Marcia Kramer, one of the moderators, has done a formidable job interjecting and pressing the candidates to answer the questions.
> Policing has been a major issue during the mayoral campaign, and it came up early in tonight’s debate, when Maurice DuBois asked candidates if they would move to take away guns from the city’s police officers.
None of the candidates seemed particularly enthusiastic about doing so: four of them — Kathryn Garcia, Andrew Yang, Scott M. Stringer and Eric Adams — said unequivocally that they would not.
Maya Wiley, who has sought to become the left’s standard-bearer and has made police reform a central tenet of her campaign, was the exception. She deferred, saying she was “not prepared to make that decision in a debate.”
Mr. Stringer, who has also courted support from left-leaning voters, was more direct, saying he would not take guns away from the police. But he acknowledged that violent crime in the city was rising, saying that when he grew up in the city, the “A train was a rolling crime scene,” a scenario he hoped to avert.
Mr. Adams, a former police officer, jumped off the imagery, invoking overnight shifts when he was on the transit beat.
“I will never forget riding the subway from 8:00 at night until 4:00 in the morning,” he said. “A woman on the train had a knife trying to stab someone, swinging wildly. I had to make a decision, do I draw my firearm with other passengers, or do I take action?”
Instead, he said, he wanted to see better training for police officers.
More live bloging by NYT of NYC Dem Primary Mayor's debate
> Andrew Yang, asked if he’d take a police detail to his second home in New Paltz as mayor, says he doesn’t expect to leave the city for a single day in his first term. He’ll be in the city “grinding away,” he says. “New Yorkers are going to be sick of me.”
> Scott Stringer taking his turn on the hot seat as moderator Marcia Kramer presses him on a second allegation of sexual abuse. Stringer denies the charges, which he says are 20 and 30 years old and urges voters to “look at my 30-year record of service.”
> Stringer inaccurately said he was misquoted by The New York Times in a report about a second allegation of making unwanted sexual advances decades ago. He was not misquoted. In response to the accuser’s description of an unprofessional work environment at a bar he co-owned, he said: “Uptown Local was a long-ago chapter in my life from the early 1990s and it was all a bit of a mess.”
> Scott Stringer attacks Maya Wiley. He accuses of her being central to two corruption scandals in the de Blasio administration. Wiley pushes back and says Stringer has used his office to perform audits in his personal interest.
> Debate moderators are digging into criticisms of each candidate. Andrew Yang is asked about whether he would travel to his second home outside the city; Scott Stringer is asked about sexual abuse allegations and Maya Wiley is asked about decisions she made while counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio.
> Maya Wiley and Scott Stringer are going at it, accusing each other of abusing the power of city positions they held. Both are competing for progressive votes, with Stringer seeking to revive his campaign following sexual misconduct allegations.
> Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia, the two leading female candidates, team up to criticize Scott Stringer, who released an audit recently on Garcia’s tenure at the sanitation department -- an audit they said was timed to hurt her politically.
> Kathryn Garcia is showing up much more strongly in this debate than the last. She fiercely defends the job she did as sanitation commissioner, talked about her diverse family, criticized Scott Stringer for what she saw as an unfair audit and mentioned her endorsements.
> Oddly, a moderator asks Eric Adams “Why haven’t you been able to reduce crime in your own backyard?” The question ignores the fact that Borough Presidency is a largely ceremonial role. The mayor controls the NYPD, as Adams notes in his response.
> Eric Adams is asked about gun violence in North Brooklyn, an area of the borough that notoriously has some of the highest gun violence rates in the city. It houses neighborhoods like East New York and Brownsville, Black and Latino neighborhoods where distrust of the police is high, and much of the work to combat gun violence has fallen to community groups and volunteers.
> Andrew Yang going back at frontrunner Eric Adams once again, summarizing his argument for becoming mayor as: “I used to be a cop 20 years ago, I should be mayor.” Adams strikes back saying that Yang has not been as involved in civic life as he has.
> Maurice DuBois, who is Black, asks if New York City should still have places, like Stuyvesant Town, named after slaveholders. Scott Stringer, Eric Adams, Andrew Yang, Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia all agree that the names should be changed. “We should not honor people that have had an abusive past,” Adams says.
> Andrew Yang, who has biked with his children to school, says he received a ticket for not riding in a bike lane.
> Andrew Yang brings up noise pollution by dirt bikes and all terrain vehicles -- an issue Eric Adams has focused on. Yang says the city needs to enforce traffic laws to stop the vehicles from overtaking the streets.
> Kathryn Garcia just made the key connection between transportation and fighting climate change and pollution. She turned the discussion of bike lanes and bike licensing toward the need for a holistic plan to make better, more equitable use of open space -- from parks to streets and natural areas -- throughout the city. She would create an office of open space to coordinate that multifaceted issue.
> With marijuana now legal in New York and people lighting up in public with impunity, the candidates were asked what they would do to protect people from the effects of secondhand smoke.
Eric Adams, who seems to have a first-person story of struggle for every social issue that comes up in the race, recalled that as a child, his father smoked often and said he was “concerned about marijuana laws altogether.”
He said, “We should make sure we regulate where the smoke is taking place, particularly in apartment buildings where people live.”
Andrew Yang said he would “designate areas in large apartment buildings that are appropriate for smoking marijuana.”
Maya Wiley said she would treat marijuana like tobacco. “In the places where we are protecting public health from secondhand smoking, we will continue to do that,” she said. “There is no reason to distinguish a marijuana cigarette and a cigarette that is not a marijuana cigarette.”
> Kathryn Garcia, who has won support from transit advocates, says congestion pricing should start now. “We are not suffering from a lack of cars in Midtown,” she says.
> Andrew Yang says he would be flexible on timing of congestion pricing while other candidates say that it is needed now
> Moderators ask which superpower candidates would prefer: to fly or invisibility. All said they would like to fly. It would have been odd for candidates seeking to assume one of the most visible elected positions in the nation to say they’d like to be invisible.
> Last question: one word to describe yourself. Wiley: “silly.” Adams: “workaholic.”Stringer: “comeback kid.” Garcia: “fixer.” Yang: “determined.”
> That’s it. The one-hour debate is over. It was less chaotic than previous debates, and the candidates were able to raise some clear differences between them.
> It was a series of escalating attacks over ethics, corruption and trash collection.
About halfway through the debate, Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, was asked by a moderator about her role in the “agents of the city” controversy, when she argued unsuccessfully in 2016 that Mr. de Blasio’s emails with outside advisers should be private.
Ms. Wiley said that she had performed the role of a lawyer advising her client but that her client, Mr. de Blasio, made his own decisions. Then, she vowed, as she has before, that her administration would be more transparent than her former boss’s.
Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, pounced, saying that Ms. Wiley had been involved in covering up corruption in Mr. de Blasio’s administration and shielding records from public view.
“The redaction and the cover-up was probably worse than the potential crime,” he said.
Ms. Wiley sought to deflect the criticism by accusing Mr. Stringer of corruption, criticizing him for releasing an audit this week targeting the emergency food program established by Kathryn Garcia.
Mr. Stringer and his office have said that their audit began last July, a claim he repeated tonight. He did not explain why his report was not released until two weeks before the primary, at a time when Ms. Garcia’s campaign has gained steam and Mr. Stringer’s has stumbled.
That brought Ms. Garcia, who had largely stayed out of the sparring in previous debates, into the fray.
“If you started the audit in July and you just released it now,” she scoffed, “there’s no politics involved?”
The discussion of audits prompted the debate moderators to ask Ms. Garcia about her record as sanitation commissioner, which has come under increasing scrutiny as she has emerged as a leading contender.
When asked about a state report that found that the sanitation department had not kept city street’s consistently cleans, she dismissed it.
“As I have said consistently, the Department of Sanitation has made the city cleaner under my watch,” Ms. Garcia said.
VERY interesting IF you can get behind the paywall.
Linda Amster, head researcher NYT
"The Times had a news research staff — the first that any American newspaper ever had. There were five of us initially — all young women in our 20s — and when we were hired we might have doubled the number of women in the newsroom. We were at the back of the newsroom, which was a huge space of about an acre.
James Greenfield came over to me and said, “Follow me.” That’s all he said. So I followed him. He turned his back on me and walked to the front of the newsroom, which was a long walk — didn’t say a word. We got to the front, where all the newsroom executives were — including Peter Millones, who was an assistant to the managing editor in charge of news administration. Jim presented me at his desk. Peter got up. Without saying a word, Jim got on my right side; Peter got on my left side. And they walked out of the newsroom, to the elevators, down to the lobby, through the lobby — not a word said — and got into a cab. Peter told the driver, “Hilton Hotel.” And the driver took us to the Hilton Hotel. Not a word was said.
We got to the hotel, went through the lobby to the elevators, to the 11th floor. And Peter did a secret knock on the door, just the way they do it in all the spy movies. I was beyond flabbergasted. The door opened, and in the room I noticed a few people that I knew from the newsroom.
Finally, I think it was Peter who said, “Well I guess you want to know why you’re here.” I said, “Yes.” And he said: “Well, we have obtained a secret history of the war in Vietnam commissioned by [former Secretary of Defense Robert S.] McNamara. It’s top secret. We can all be arrested and imprisoned because we have it, and we’re planning to publish it. And we need research, and we wonder if you will do it.” And I said, without blinking an eye, “Show me the papers.”
Hold on. If Hollywood has taught me anything, then wasn't it the Washington Post that published the Pentagon Papers? The film, The Post, was about the Post not the Times iirc? Or were there two sets of Papers?
VERY interesting IF you can get behind the paywall.
Linda Amster, head researcher NYT
"The Times had a news research staff — the first that any American newspaper ever had. There were five of us initially — all young women in our 20s — and when we were hired we might have doubled the number of women in the newsroom. We were at the back of the newsroom, which was a huge space of about an acre.
James Greenfield came over to me and said, “Follow me.” That’s all he said. So I followed him. He turned his back on me and walked to the front of the newsroom, which was a long walk — didn’t say a word. We got to the front, where all the newsroom executives were — including Peter Millones, who was an assistant to the managing editor in charge of news administration. Jim presented me at his desk. Peter got up. Without saying a word, Jim got on my right side; Peter got on my left side. And they walked out of the newsroom, to the elevators, down to the lobby, through the lobby — not a word said — and got into a cab. Peter told the driver, “Hilton Hotel.” And the driver took us to the Hilton Hotel. Not a word was said.
We got to the hotel, went through the lobby to the elevators, to the 11th floor. And Peter did a secret knock on the door, just the way they do it in all the spy movies. I was beyond flabbergasted. The door opened, and in the room I noticed a few people that I knew from the newsroom.
Finally, I think it was Peter who said, “Well I guess you want to know why you’re here.” I said, “Yes.” And he said: “Well, we have obtained a secret history of the war in Vietnam commissioned by [former Secretary of Defense Robert S.] McNamara. It’s top secret. We can all be arrested and imprisoned because we have it, and we’re planning to publish it. And we need research, and we wonder if you will do it.” And I said, without blinking an eye, “Show me the papers.”
Hold on. If Hollywood has taught me anything, then wasn't it the Washington Post that published the Pentagon Papers? The film, The Post, was about the Post not the Times iirc? Or were there two sets of Papers?
Daniel Ellsberg gave copies to NYT and WP, as well as other US news organizations. But the NYT would up with full set of copies and was first to actually publish. Which was both a major scoop AND a huge risk. In fact, the NYT's own law firm refused to take part!
"In February 1971, Ellsberg discussed the study with The New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[11] but in-house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.
The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity. Street protests, political controversy, and lawsuits followed."
> James C. Goodale, legal counsel - The government tried to persuade the [federal] judge that the world would come to an end if The New York Times continued to publish. But the best way we made our case was by cross-examining the government witnesses, and we were sort of surprised that they couldn’t justify why they’d classified things.
On Saturday morning, Judge Gurfein issued his decision, and he decided in favor of us and dissolved the injunction, subject to it being reinstated by the next court above him. He even pointed out that he thought the legislative history was pretty clear that the Espionage Act did not apply to this sort of thing. I felt so giddy, I called up the newsroom and said: “We won! Roll the presses!” But a few minutes later, another judge reinstated the injunction. We were going up to the appellate court.
And in the meantime, the Washington Post has published [its own portion of the Pentagon Papers], so now there are two cases going on.
> Sanford J. Ungar, court reporter for Washington Post - There was tremendous drama, and I think what stunned The Post is that this was a Washington story that The Times scooped. It was a very macho thing for [The Post’s executive editor, Ben] Bradlee. The young reporters like me certainly felt solidarity with The Times when it first published the papers and when they were in court. But I think we were happier when, The Times having been stopped, we were next.
I always think there's too much reliance on the legal system in the USA. "See you in court" and all that. It's best to try to sort things out without going to court most of the time IMO. That used to be the attitude of most people in the UK, although that seems to have changed recently.
Re: the Pentagon Papers, yours truly was 15 when they were published. While I was NOT reading either the NYT or Washington Post, major parts of the PP were published (after SCOTUS ruled against the govt) in the two WV daily papers we did get and Time & Newsweek (big deals back then) plus the story was extensively covered by ABC, CBS and NBC (who between them WERE TV news back then).
Was already against the war, but the Pentagon Papers heightened my (and many others) opposition, along with the bombing of Cambodia.
And the saga and outcome of the court cases were and still remain MAJOR contributions to freedom of the press in America.
Richard Nixon's initial instinct was sound - the PP were bad news for LBJ and his henchpeople NOT for the Nixon Administration. Until that is he listened to Henry Kissinger, who as some geezers may recall, was even more leak-adverse than Donald Trumpsky.
I always think there's too much reliance on the legal system in the USA. "See you in court" and all that. It's best to try to sort things out without going to court most of the time IMO. That used to be the attitude of most people in the UK, although that seems to have changed recently.
Thank God that the New York Times, Washington Post and others fought the federal government's attempt to muzzle the press AND violate the 1st Amendment.
There are many examples in British history of fundamental constitutional rights and liberties being defended and vindicated in YOUR courts. Perhaps you should return to this tradition, instead of allowing Parliament (aka House of Commons) to be a dictatorial body, all too often tugging the forelock to HM's government.
Comments
I find the reaction to former leaders deeply weird and I reject the idea they have no dignity if they remain in parliament and speak up as an MP as they are duty bound to do.
May was not a great PM. For all I know she is a great MP - she should keep doing the job if she thinks that best, and Boris and co insulting her as undignified for being an MP and performing that job is pathetic. I dont even care what she says, sometimes she'll talk nonsense, but doing the job is fine.
The idea ex PMs must depart and be silent? Preposterous. Why? For how long?
Cui bono? I think we know.
One problem with ex PMs not retiring is that whatever they say is clouded by being a giant sulk. Which it is. So even when she makes a good point, it still isn't taken as seriously because of who she is. She's burnt her bridges.
Same with Brown, Cameron, Blair etc after they stepped down. They just had the self respect to recognise it.
More so since none of them go to the Lords these days.
Blair, Major and Brown occasionally have interesting points to make. And it is hard to argue they don't know what they are talking about, even if you profoundly disagree. They'd be more effective coming from the benches.
Just occurred. How about making all ex-PM's who don't stand for election a non-voting MP in the Commons for Life?
Edit. Just realised I omitted Cameron. As he never adds owt. The exception that proves the rule. Has anyone fallen faster?
But for all my cynicism I respect the role of MP and I think it positive that May hasn't just gone off at first opportunity. She thinks she has something to offer the legislature.
Many will disagree, but I respect that she sees parliament as more than just a stepping stone to the top, and I dont think any past PMs should feel muzzled, especially when still in parliament.
And the idea staying and criticising is undignified is practically offensive - she's not sitting there spewing silly critiques 24/7.
When this breaks out, I rather sensibly take my drink and quietly decamp away from the blast zone....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9672475/British-BA-pilot-spent-record-243-days-hospital-covid-died.html
I can think of no other issue quite so viscerally divisive.
We’ve got to a ludicrous situation now where figures on the left care more about the knee than actual racism and on both sides we have England fans saying they’ll support Scotland and Scotland fans saying they’ll support England. What a complete mess and sideshow the whole thing has been.
I said earlier I think the cricket had the right approach. No knee taking, some t-shirts with equality / diversity messages, but more importantly a statement that basically said, whoever you are, we want cricket to be your game. All very positive. No booing, and off to the game.
It's funny.
@Leon complains bitterly about how people support BLM, and how they wouldn't if they knew what BLM's real views were.
He then tells us he's voted (enthusiastically) for the Greens in the past, despite the fact that they are undisputedly ecofascists, under whose yoke it would be extremely unpleasant to live.
People don't look into the detailed policy positions of people they support shocker.
It’s yet another ludicrous storm in teacup, stirred up by the risible culture warriors from left and right.
If he wants to change the law when he is PM, go ahead, but wading in now, its just bad politics. Look how Jo Swinson got in a total mess over it.
They seem to go unnoticed and uncommented on by and large.
Cases are going up really very rapidly now. If you think this will lead to substantial hospitalisations, and ultimately deaths, and you think the government should impose restrictions on liberty to prevent that, then you'd have to reverse the May 17th loosening to bring it under control. I'm not saying that would be a good idea, but it would at least be logically consistent.
And then, if you think the contrary, or at least that enough people are vaccinated that the NHS can cope with anything Delta can manage, then there's no reason to delay.
A delay would be yet more evidence of Johnson being unable to make a decision, of being incredibly weak and indecisive.
It's next Thursday, right?
> First question for Andrew Yang: Does Eric Adams live in New York City? Yang says Adams has not been straightforward. “He’s been attacking me from New Jersey,” Yang said. “His tour of the basement raised more questions than it answered.”
> After being the front-runner in available polling for months, Andrew Yang dropped to third in a recent poll as Eric Adams and Maya Wiley, who have been locked in a fight over crime and public safety, surged. Yang starts the debate going directly at Adams.
> Kathryn Garcia says she found the reports over where Eric Adams lives “confusing” and chooses to focus on her record as a crisis manager. “I’m the person who can deliver on impossible problems,” she says.
> Eric Adams is wearing a broad smile on his face as he says, “I live in Brooklyn, I live in Bedford-Stuyvesant”
> Eric Adams held an emotional news conference outside of the townhouse he owns in Bedford-Stuyvesant on Wednesday. He choked up for more than a minute, his lips quivering and a tear rolling down his face, as he explained that he became fiercely protective of his privacy when he was a police officer and someone shot at his car just after his son was born.
> Andrew Yang goes after Adams, saying he never held a Zoom forum from the Brooklyn basement apartment where he says he lives. Important to note that Yang has been criticized himself for living upstate at the height of the pandemic.
> Maya Wiley addresses a legislative proposal from Albany, which would significantly raise the bar for the police firing their weapons, and would require that the police only use lethal force as a “last resort.” This proposal has come under fierce criticism from the police, who say the new rules would make it much more difficult for officers to make split-second decisions during confrontations with suspects.
> “I don’t live in New Paltz,” Eric Adams said, a dig at Andrew Yang, who spent significant parts of the pandemic in the Hudson Valley and has been criticized by his rivals for it.
> Eric Adams mentions his partner, Tracey Collins, a former school principal, whom he shares a home with in Fort Lee, N.J. Several of the candidates have brought their spouses or children on the campaign trail. Not Mr. Adams. He has said that Ms. Collins is private and does not want to be involved in politics.
> For now, Eric Adams' residency question is coming down to perceptions: Is he evasive, ethically challenge? Or do his paperwork problems and late nights add up to something more ordinary and relatable, the eccentric habit of a man with a life devoted to work and politics and overflowing, like so many other people’s, with conflicting commitments to professional, personal and family life?
> In a repeat of the last debate, Andrew Yang says that as mayor, he would embark on a “massive recruitment drive for new police officers”
> Eric Adams has called for the return of the plain clothes police unit whose goal is to get guns off the street. He has also said stop-and-frisk is a tool that can be used legally and effectively. Maya Wiley has hammered at Adams over those points in the last few weeks.
> Maya Wiley continues to bank on the notion that at a time of rising shootings, New Yorkers want fewer cops, not more.
> Fifteen minutes into the debate, the questions have so far focused on whether Eric Adams lives in New York, the campaign topic of the week, and public safety, an issue that has defined the campaign for months now.
> The plain clothes police unit Eric Adams has proposed bringing back was disbanded last year by the police commissioner, who said the unit — which was routinely criticized for aggressive tactics and excessive force — contributed to distrust between the police and communities.
> The tone of this debate is much more calm than the last debate, where the candidates were talking over one another and ignoring the calls of moderators to stop speaking. Even the initial debate over Eric Adams’s residency was relatively calm compared with the frenetic opening hour of the last debate.
> Eric Adams decided to attend the debate and not go to the vigil for Justin Wallace, a 10-year-old fatally shot in Queens, because he felt that “attempts to politicize the memorial would be a painful distraction.” Andrew Yang’s co-campaign manager had accused Adams of trying to avoid the debate stage.
> Maya Wiley says Justin Wallace, a 10-year-old boy who was fatally shot, did not die because the city didn't have enough police officers. His death shows the need for “trauma-informed care,” she says.
> The candidates are asked how they would work with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has a knack for feuding with Mayor Bill de Blasio and overruling city decisions. “Nobody in Albany, when I’m mayor, will steal my lunch money,” Scott Stringer says.
It will be a net Tory gain.
Expect c 50% polling incoming.
> Eric Adams says he’s going to put his ego aside and work with Andrew Cuomo for “team New York.” Andrew Yang says he has had “a number of calls” with the governor and touts his friendship with Cuomo’s brother, the CNN host Chris Cuomo.
> Since we’re talking about the governor: Last week, he said several times that he thought crime and public safety were the most important issues in the mayor’s race.
> In discussing his potential relationship with Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Andrew Yang says that the rest of the state needs New York City, given that it drives a significant share of the state’s economy. The rest of the state has rebounded better than the city so far. The unemployment rate in the city is 11.4 percent — about double what it is in the rest of the state.
> Maya Wiley has been one of the fiercest critics of Governor Andrew Cuomo and called on him to resign in response to allegations of sexual misconduct. She says she would work with the governor by organizing constituencies to put pressure on him.
> Eric Adams, burnishing his law enforcement profile, says that he’s “concerned about the marijuana laws altogether,” and supports restrictions on second-hand marijuana smoke.
> The topic turns to marijuana, which was recently legalized in New York. Eric Adams says it’s important to regulate where the drug can be smoked. Currently, it can be smoked wherever tobacco is allowed, but the city has the option to implement additional regulations designating where it can and cannot be smoked.
> In defending New York State’s legalization of marijuana, both Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia correctly point out that the vast majority of the people the Police Department arrests for marijuana-related offenses were overwhelmingly people of color.
> This debate is so far more orderly than the last one. Marcia Kramer, one of the moderators, has done a formidable job interjecting and pressing the candidates to answer the questions.
> Policing has been a major issue during the mayoral campaign, and it came up early in tonight’s debate, when Maurice DuBois asked candidates if they would move to take away guns from the city’s police officers.
None of the candidates seemed particularly enthusiastic about doing so: four of them — Kathryn Garcia, Andrew Yang, Scott M. Stringer and Eric Adams — said unequivocally that they would not.
Maya Wiley, who has sought to become the left’s standard-bearer and has made police reform a central tenet of her campaign, was the exception. She deferred, saying she was “not prepared to make that decision in a debate.”
Mr. Stringer, who has also courted support from left-leaning voters, was more direct, saying he would not take guns away from the police. But he acknowledged that violent crime in the city was rising, saying that when he grew up in the city, the “A train was a rolling crime scene,” a scenario he hoped to avert.
Mr. Adams, a former police officer, jumped off the imagery, invoking overnight shifts when he was on the transit beat.
“I will never forget riding the subway from 8:00 at night until 4:00 in the morning,” he said. “A woman on the train had a knife trying to stab someone, swinging wildly. I had to make a decision, do I draw my firearm with other passengers, or do I take action?”
Instead, he said, he wanted to see better training for police officers.
> Andrew Yang, asked if he’d take a police detail to his second home in New Paltz as mayor, says he doesn’t expect to leave the city for a single day in his first term. He’ll be in the city “grinding away,” he says. “New Yorkers are going to be sick of me.”
> Scott Stringer taking his turn on the hot seat as moderator Marcia Kramer presses him on a second allegation of sexual abuse. Stringer denies the charges, which he says are 20 and 30 years old and urges voters to “look at my 30-year record of service.”
> Stringer inaccurately said he was misquoted by The New York Times in a report about a second allegation of making unwanted sexual advances decades ago. He was not misquoted. In response to the accuser’s description of an unprofessional work environment at a bar he co-owned, he said: “Uptown Local was a long-ago chapter in my life from the early 1990s and it was all a bit of a mess.”
> Scott Stringer attacks Maya Wiley. He accuses of her being central to two corruption scandals in the de Blasio administration. Wiley pushes back and says Stringer has used his office to perform audits in his personal interest.
> Debate moderators are digging into criticisms of each candidate. Andrew Yang is asked about whether he would travel to his second home outside the city; Scott Stringer is asked about sexual abuse allegations and Maya Wiley is asked about decisions she made while counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio.
> Maya Wiley and Scott Stringer are going at it, accusing each other of abusing the power of city positions they held. Both are competing for progressive votes, with Stringer seeking to revive his campaign following sexual misconduct allegations.
> Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia, the two leading female candidates, team up to criticize Scott Stringer, who released an audit recently on Garcia’s tenure at the sanitation department -- an audit they said was timed to hurt her politically.
> Kathryn Garcia is showing up much more strongly in this debate than the last. She fiercely defends the job she did as sanitation commissioner, talked about her diverse family, criticized Scott Stringer for what she saw as an unfair audit and mentioned her endorsements.
> Oddly, a moderator asks Eric Adams “Why haven’t you been able to reduce crime in your own backyard?” The question ignores the fact that Borough Presidency is a largely ceremonial role. The mayor controls the NYPD, as Adams notes in his response.
> Eric Adams is asked about gun violence in North Brooklyn, an area of the borough that notoriously has some of the highest gun violence rates in the city. It houses neighborhoods like East New York and Brownsville, Black and Latino neighborhoods where distrust of the police is high, and much of the work to combat gun violence has fallen to community groups and volunteers.
> Andrew Yang going back at frontrunner Eric Adams once again, summarizing his argument for becoming mayor as: “I used to be a cop 20 years ago, I should be mayor.” Adams strikes back saying that Yang has not been as involved in civic life as he has.
> Maurice DuBois, who is Black, asks if New York City should still have places, like Stuyvesant Town, named after slaveholders. Scott Stringer, Eric Adams, Andrew Yang, Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia all agree that the names should be changed. “We should not honor people that have had an abusive past,” Adams says.
> Andrew Yang, who has biked with his children to school, says he received a ticket for not riding in a bike lane.
> Andrew Yang brings up noise pollution by dirt bikes and all terrain vehicles -- an issue Eric Adams has focused on. Yang says the city needs to enforce traffic laws to stop the vehicles from overtaking the streets.
> Kathryn Garcia just made the key connection between transportation and fighting climate change and pollution. She turned the discussion of bike lanes and bike licensing toward the need for a holistic plan to make better, more equitable use of open space -- from parks to streets and natural areas -- throughout the city. She would create an office of open space to coordinate that multifaceted issue.
> With marijuana now legal in New York and people lighting up in public with impunity, the candidates were asked what they would do to protect people from the effects of secondhand smoke.
Eric Adams, who seems to have a first-person story of struggle for every social issue that comes up in the race, recalled that as a child, his father smoked often and said he was “concerned about marijuana laws altogether.”
He said, “We should make sure we regulate where the smoke is taking place, particularly in apartment buildings where people live.”
Andrew Yang said he would “designate areas in large apartment buildings that are appropriate for smoking marijuana.”
Maya Wiley said she would treat marijuana like tobacco. “In the places where we are protecting public health from secondhand smoking, we will continue to do that,” she said. “There is no reason to distinguish a marijuana cigarette and a cigarette that is not a marijuana cigarette.”
> Andrew Yang says he would be flexible on timing of congestion pricing while other candidates say that it is needed now
> Moderators ask which superpower candidates would prefer: to fly or invisibility. All said they would like to fly. It would have been odd for candidates seeking to assume one of the most visible elected positions in the nation to say they’d like to be invisible.
> Last question: one word to describe yourself. Wiley: “silly.” Adams: “workaholic.”Stringer: “comeback kid.” Garcia: “fixer.” Yang: “determined.”
> That’s it. The one-hour debate is over. It was less chaotic than previous debates, and the candidates were able to raise some clear differences between them.
> It was a series of escalating attacks over ethics, corruption and trash collection.
About halfway through the debate, Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, was asked by a moderator about her role in the “agents of the city” controversy, when she argued unsuccessfully in 2016 that Mr. de Blasio’s emails with outside advisers should be private.
Ms. Wiley said that she had performed the role of a lawyer advising her client but that her client, Mr. de Blasio, made his own decisions. Then, she vowed, as she has before, that her administration would be more transparent than her former boss’s.
Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller, pounced, saying that Ms. Wiley had been involved in covering up corruption in Mr. de Blasio’s administration and shielding records from public view.
“The redaction and the cover-up was probably worse than the potential crime,” he said.
Ms. Wiley sought to deflect the criticism by accusing Mr. Stringer of corruption, criticizing him for releasing an audit this week targeting the emergency food program established by Kathryn Garcia.
Mr. Stringer and his office have said that their audit began last July, a claim he repeated tonight. He did not explain why his report was not released until two weeks before the primary, at a time when Ms. Garcia’s campaign has gained steam and Mr. Stringer’s has stumbled.
That brought Ms. Garcia, who had largely stayed out of the sparring in previous debates, into the fray.
“If you started the audit in July and you just released it now,” she scoffed, “there’s no politics involved?”
The discussion of audits prompted the debate moderators to ask Ms. Garcia about her record as sanitation commissioner, which has come under increasing scrutiny as she has emerged as a leading contender.
When asked about a state report that found that the sanitation department had not kept city street’s consistently cleans, she dismissed it.
“As I have said consistently, the Department of Sanitation has made the city cleaner under my watch,” Ms. Garcia said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
"In February 1971, Ellsberg discussed the study with The New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[11] but in-house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.
The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity. Street protests, political controversy, and lawsuits followed."
> James C. Goodale, legal counsel - The government tried to persuade the [federal] judge that the world would come to an end if The New York Times continued to publish. But the best way we made our case was by cross-examining the government witnesses, and we were sort of surprised that they couldn’t justify why they’d classified things.
On Saturday morning, Judge Gurfein issued his decision, and he decided in favor of us and dissolved the injunction, subject to it being reinstated by the next court above him. He even pointed out that he thought the legislative history was pretty clear that the Espionage Act did not apply to this sort of thing. I felt so giddy, I called up the newsroom and said: “We won! Roll the presses!” But a few minutes later, another judge reinstated the injunction. We were going up to the appellate court.
And in the meantime, the Washington Post has published [its own portion of the Pentagon Papers], so now there are two cases going on.
> Sanford J. Ungar, court reporter for Washington Post - There was tremendous drama, and I think what stunned The Post is that this was a Washington story that The Times scooped. It was a very macho thing for [The Post’s executive editor, Ben] Bradlee. The young reporters like me certainly felt solidarity with The Times when it first published the papers and when they were in court. But I think we were happier when, The Times having been stopped, we were next.
Was already against the war, but the Pentagon Papers heightened my (and many others) opposition, along with the bombing of Cambodia.
And the saga and outcome of the court cases were and still remain MAJOR contributions to freedom of the press in America.
Richard Nixon's initial instinct was sound - the PP were bad news for LBJ and his henchpeople NOT for the Nixon Administration. Until that is he listened to Henry Kissinger, who as some geezers may recall, was even more leak-adverse than Donald Trumpsky.
There are many examples in British history of fundamental constitutional rights and liberties being defended and vindicated in YOUR courts. Perhaps you should return to this tradition, instead of allowing Parliament (aka House of Commons) to be a dictatorial body, all too often tugging the forelock to HM's government.