I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .
By defecating/defecting the Europhile ex-Tory Tiggers have taken the heat off Jezza on antisemitism.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy hold
The Lib Dems only won 17% there. The villages of that constituency would seem rock-ribbed Conservative to me, although she'd poll well in the Cambridge suburbs
Look at the historic results, and the local election votes.
Wasn't Cambridgeshire South one of the constituencies we were told was going to be an easy gain for the LibDems in 2010 ?
You have to accept that very, very few of the predictions of LibDem 'easy hold' have been correct in recent years.
With respect I think there's a huge difference between predicting LibDem gains (which I never did, regarding this seat) and predicting that a very popular Tory MP in one of the most Remain seats in the country would sail home if also backed by the local LDs
In a Brexit election, maybe.
But, if the next GE is not dominated by Brexit -- which is likely if it is not held shortly -- then no.
The Tories will take that seat from her.
Brexit gain in South Cambs - err, right.
I think much would turn on the size of the Labour vote. I couldn't see a Conservative polling much under 40%.
Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
Well indeed.
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
Suppose, instead of another eight or ten MPs from the Labour and Conservative parties, half of all MPs in parliament joined Chuka Umunna’s group. They would become the government without an election. Suppose they then said to the public, as Umunna and co. have: “send us your ideas for what policies we should pursue,” adding “but don’t rush”.
You would then have the ideal form of neoliberal governance in the UK – and not far off what you have in the French National Assembly under Emmanuel Macron... Their task would be – as Macron’s is – to delay as long as possible the open fight between the two rising forces: radical leftism and authoritarian racism.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy hold
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.
“Liberals”?
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats.
Tom Bower is a piece of work. If anyone has read any of his 'biographies' they'll know what I mean. I read one on Maxwell and even with that open goal it was unresearched 'fact' mixed with garbled opinion written badly. Calling someone a 'self hating Jew' sums up his intellectual rigour rather well.
Someone bought me his biog of Gordon Brown one Christmas. It is a truly awful book.
I hope you defriended then from Facebook for that....have they also bought you boxed wine and the best of Radiohead live as presents?
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.
We are a Common Law nation. No reason the courts can't apply common sense.
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.
Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
Well indeed.
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
Quite true. But this case has highlighted the difficulties with the current law - which effectively gives the Home Secretary the power of exile in a particular set of cases. And for a particular class of UK born citizens.
Is this new party one that is set up as a centre left party who are fed up with Jeremy Corbyn or is it one that has the purpose of remaining in the EU?
If it is the latter then it's going to have a very limited appeal.
The EU ship is about to sail, so no I don't think the IG is just the Remain Party. Brexit has been the catalyst though, as it has for many non-politicians. The group will build up a lot of goodwill and momentum in the next six weeks, so the timing is quite good. But it's hard to say how things will pan out after 29 March.
Chukka was very clear. The aim is to break the mould of our politics.
This is bigger than Brexit, even if it fails.
Yes but what does it even mean? Breaking the mould is a slogan, not a policy, and still less a philosophy. It only seems profound in comparison with Brexit means Brexit or Education education education.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.
I think "appears to be" is the stress here. It is judicially reviewable.
I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .
On the other hand, if they really want to catch the mood and create something new, the quicker they get away from Gapes's "we are the Labour Party they left behind" stuff, the better.
I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .
By defecating/defecting the Europhile ex-Tory Tiggers have taken the heat off Jezza on antisemitism.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.
I think "appears to be" is the stress here. It is judicially reviewable.
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy hold
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.
“Liberals”?
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats.
In theory they exist in reality they don't.
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.
It's quite hard to get rid of American citizenship, as you'd expect from a country that taxes your worldwide income even if you never go there.
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
Well indeed.
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
Quite true. But this case has highlighted the difficulties with the current law - which effectively gives the Home Secretary the power of exile in a particular set of cases. And for a particular class of UK born citizens.
All Jews have an entitlement to Israeli citizenship - it's not a stretch to see how this could be used against them:
For all that, @Philip_Thompson is right, Javid is acting reasonably and doing the right thing by this country under the law as it stands. It's not exactly fair on Bangladesh, though, is it? A change to the law should be considered.
Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
She is a Brit. And in Britain we have laws to deal with illegal activity. So one of the laws seems to be that the HS can strip someone of their citizenship subject to various conditions (as described by @Chris ).
My point is that as a judgement, not legal call, I disagree with it.
There should have been a modern treason law with very narrow definition of treason based on aiding a nation or group that British armed forces are currently fighting. That would catch the ISIS supporters but not the pro Kurd people (for instance). The problem we face is that convicting the Jihadi brides in the UK will be difficult. Monitoring them will cost an enormous sum and there is a good chance of a terrorist incident that will cause a hell of a reaction. Difficult situation made worse by lack determination by politicians to take controversial decisions in advance. I don't like the revocation of citizenship approach in this case.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts.
But the problem is Corbyn’s views of Jews. That is what is spooking so many British Jews and anyone else with dual citizenship (declaration of interest: I have dual citizenship). I do not trust him to deal fairly with the Jewish community or, indeed, anyone else who is deemed to be an enemy or traitor.
Rather than being for the many he seems to surround himself with and listen only to a very small group of people who echo his own thoughts. He has made it very clear - and his reaction to the Tiggers has shown this - that you are either for him or against him. And if you are against him, you no longer count.
But the discretion of the Home Secretary appears to be rather wide in these cases.
I think "appears to be" is the stress here. It is judicially reviewable.
But on what grounds ?
I mean, a decision which is politically motivated could be: - Irrational - Disproportionate (whether at common law or HRA) - Without due process
etc. etc.
The Home Secretary's ability to make it up as they go along is much smaller than it might appear.
I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
I agree. Do TIG want to be a centre left / anti-Corbyn group and therefore be attractive to everyone from the centre to soft left or do they want to be a centrist party that is attractive from the centre left to the centre right .
By defecating/defecting the Europhile ex-Tory Tiggers have taken the heat off Jezza on antisemitism.
Why ?
I expect that Soubry, Wollaston and Allen will be equally scathing about Corbyn. Brexit and dislike for Corbyn is their common denominator
Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
Well indeed.
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
Quite true. But this case has highlighted the difficulties with the current law - which effectively gives the Home Secretary the power of exile in a particular set of cases. And for a particular class of UK born citizens.
In very extreme cases and subject to judicial review.
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy hold
The Lib Dems only won 17% there. The villages of that constituency would seem rock-ribbed Conservative to me, although she'd poll well in the Cambridge suburbs
Look at the historic results, and the local election votes.
Wasn't Cambridgeshire South one of the constituencies we were told was going to be an easy gain for the LibDems in 2010 ?
You have to accept that very, very few of the predictions of LibDem 'easy hold' have been correct in recent years.
With respect I think there's a huge difference between predicting LibDem gains (which I never did, regarding this seat) and predicting that a very popular Tory MP in one of the most Remain seats in the country would sail home if also backed by the local LDs
In a Brexit election, maybe.
But, if the next GE is not dominated by Brexit -- which is likely if it is not held shortly -- then no.
The Tories will take that seat from her.
Brexit gain in South Cambs - err, right.
I think much would turn on the size of the Labour vote. I couldn't see a Conservative polling much under 40%.
I don't know why Heidi Allen joined the Conservatives in the first place.
She was well to the Left of Cameron/Osborne even in 2014-2015.
She is to the left of several people in the Labour Party!
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy hold
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.
“Liberals”?
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats.
In theory they exist in reality they don't.
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
The LibDems is the shorthand.
But, I don’t really care -- let us ask the abundant members of the party on this board.
Certainly, when Gordon Brown in his charmless way referred to them endlessly as the Liberals, they objected.
I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
Sarah Wollaston would be quite useful...she can claim with justification that the Tory party she joined under Cameron isn’t there anymore, has lurched to the right etc etc etc.
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!
Regarding Shamima Begum I was just about OK with it as I thought she had Bangladesh Citizenship, as she only has the possibility of the right to Bangladesh citizenship I'm rather more dubious now.
She is not having her citizenship revoked because she has a Bangladeshi passport though. It is because she joined a terrorist organisation completely at odds to our entire way of life.
It's like saying you can't put someone in jail for murder because then they could also put you in jail for being Jewish.
Define "completely at odds to our entire way of life" is the problem.
And don't give Jeremy ideas wrt putting Jewish people in jail.
And welcome!
Is it really controversial to have a situation whereby if you join a proscribed terrorist organisation abroad, we have the right to forbid your re-entry to the UK if possible?
The original counter was it would render her stateless, if there is now a way of getting around that, what’s the problem?
She is a Brit. And in Britain we have laws to deal with illegal activity. So one of the laws seems to be that the HS can strip someone of their citizenship subject to various conditions (as described by @Chris ).
My point is that as a judgement, not legal call, I disagree with it.
Not anymore she is not.
You disagree with it. I don't. She sacrificed her British citizenship when she went to fight for ISIS. I see no reason to bring her back. Her choice, her actions, she can live with the consequences.
From his website: "I want a Labour government that will fully renationalise the NHS, railways and utilities, and postal service. I want to see all funding restored to the emergency services."
I agree that we should remove the wasteful marketised competition in the NHS. Rail franchises should be allowed to expire so that our government can run the trains as opposed to the French, German, Dutch and Italian governments. Fine with the post office.
But utilities? "Fully Renationalise" Thames Water and the others? Are you mad? The policy in the manifesto was to set up state owned regional companies to out-compete the private monopolies, not to buy them. How many billions would that cost? And thats before their respective share prices soar knowing the government has committed to buy.
That of course is the policy. Not to purchase United Utilities. But to steal it. Too many of these cretins think we can just take these firms without compensation and everything will be fine.
THIS is why I am staying in the party. To save it from utter wazzocks like our candidate for the Mayor of North Tyneside
I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
Sarah Wollaston would be quite useful...she can claim with justification that the Tory party she joined under Cameron isn’t there anymore, has lurched to the right etc etc etc.
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!
Can anyone explain how this 'Independent Group' are going to come up with domestic policies that appeal to Labour voters, when one of their members has spent the last 9 years being one of the main cheerleaders for austerity (Soubry)?
If they cannot see their futures in the Conservative Party, then they are right to leave. They have of course all been relaxed as to the Tory whip in the last couple of years.
Allen and Soubry would lose, but part of me hopes Wollaston hangs on. Parliament would be better for it.
With a LibDem deal, Allen is an easy hold
Heidi Allen will win her seat no problem, as the Liberals won’t fight it. I also think Anna and Dr W stand a good chance.
“Liberals”?
Did the last thirty years not happen to you?
As you have got the very name of the party wrong, I suspect you may not be a reliable judge!
It's shorthand. Or do you insist that the Tories are referred to as The Conservative & Unionist Party in all citations?
The Liberals still exist. They are a different party to the Liberal Democrats.
In theory they exist in reality they don't.
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
The LibDems is the shorthand.
But, I don’t really care -- let us ask the abundant members of the party on this board.
Certainly, when Gordon Brown in his charmless way referred to them endlessly as the Liberals, they objected.
Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council.
Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and Sunderland Councils rejected it due to fears that Newcastle would be the only place to gain from it. Northumberland was only added to try to keep the scheme going.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.
We are a Common Law nation. No reason the courts can't apply common sense.
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.
You're surely not being serious about "common law" meaning the courts reach decisions based on "common sense" rather than law, are you? I never know when people are posting silly stuff just for amusement here.
Fortunately whether people have committed treason isn't decided by online comments (at least not yet). I hope this case will be properly examined at appeal, and it will be interesting to see the conclusion.
I do wonder about the risks for the TIG here in accepting Tory defectors quite so quickly; it dilutes the impact of their message so far (though obviously they also need to grow from Conservative sympathisers too). Perhaps a CIG would be in order for a while first.
Sarah Wollaston would be quite useful...she can claim with justification that the Tory party she joined under Cameron isn’t there anymore, has lurched to the right etc etc etc.
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!
Like when she lied during the referendum more than any other MP? Wouldn't trust her to run a bath let alone a political party.
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council without the Wear bit.
Gateshead and South Tyneside rejected it due to fears of being always outvoted so what's left is the only thing Newcastle could create.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
Yeah I agree with all of these points. Sensible point would be to have the HQ in Gateshead to placate the ‘I don’t want to be ruled by Newcastle’ brigade.
Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').
The missing piece to that puzzle being that she was a child when she left. And is only just now not a child (the UN definition being anyone under 18). If you think the best way to help humanity is to abandon children who have been abused, then that is a view I don't share.
For sure. And I would say that Galloway is (or rather was, he's past it now) the more dangerous because he was extremely talented as a communicator whereas Bone is just quite talented.
A smattering of preening ideologues (if they are good at it) can IMO be healthy for our politics but only so long as they don't gain power. A fine line to tread, I guess, since if they are VERY good at it they might well gain power.
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
Gateshead is not part of Newcastle. It is part of County Durham. A Mayor covering the area between Tyne and Tees would be my choice. Well, either a mayor or a Prince Bishop.
Can anyone explain how this 'Independent Group' are going to come up with domestic policies that appeal to Labour voters, when one of their members has spent the last 9 years being one of the main cheerleaders for austerity (Soubry)?
They don't need to come up with anything like that. They simply watch as The Brexit sweeps away all the established political norms.
How many TIGgers can we look forward to? 20? 50? 100?
Mr. Topping, she's an adult who said she didn't regret going to join ISIS, a group noted for its industrial scale sexual slavery, attempting religious genocide against the Yazidis, burning prisoners alive, and crucifying children.
Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').
The missing piece to that puzzle being that she was a child when she left. And is only just now not a child (the UN definition being anyone under 18). If you think the best way to help humanity is to abandon children who have been abused, then that is a view I don't share.
Yes, that's a sensible argument. I'm not actually defending Javid's action (I think it's arguable either way), just trying to distinguish between valid arguments and invalid ones.
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council.
Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and Sunderland Councils rejected it due to fears that Newcastle would be the only place to gain from it. Northumberland was only added to try to keep the scheme going.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
Indeed. Given that Gateshead IS Newcastle to anyone visiting from outside they are making an entirely false distinction.
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
The sane plan was to reintroduce something that was almost Tyne and Wear council without the Wear bit.
Gateshead and South Tyneside rejected it due to fears of being always outvoted so what's left is the only thing Newcastle could create.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
Yeah I agree with all of these points. Sensible point would be to have the HQ in Gateshead to placate the ‘I don’t want to be ruled by Newcastle’ brigade.
Oh well. Greater Northumberland it is.
Are there council elections this year beyond the Mayoral election?
Their description of the ERG is correct. However, their voting records show that they are not prepared to tolerate any form of Brexit, despite their manifesto commitments.
Who cares? The entire mayoralty is a complete nonsense, geographically. It does NOT include Gateshead, which is effectively part of Newcastle despite some old-school parochial voices claiming otherwise.
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
Gateshead is not part of Newcastle. It is part of County Durham. A Mayor covering the area between Tyne and Tees would be my choice. Well, either a mayor or a Prince Bishop.
I mean it isn’t part of County Durham. Hasn’t been for a long time.
Daily Mail Isis Bride Passport Article now on close to 100,000 shares and top comment 45,000 likes...
How many votes did the BNP get at the height of their popularity?
People don't like her. The media framing of her as "ISIS Bride" is fatal.
Let's be honest ISIS is an awful organisation that did shocking crimes. Imagine a British girl had sneaked off to germany in 1940 and married an SS officer.
Whilst it'd be wrong to blame her for the holocaust, she'd not expect a warm welcome.
Same here. Whilst I can understand the whole, she was young, redemption thought process, I also get the visceral desire for vengeance.
Agree with all of that but the fact that our visceral desire for vengeance is constrained by the rule of law is what distinguishes us from the other lot.
Indeed. There must be hundreds of thousands of Britons who, under Javid's definition should now worry they could arbitrarily be stripped of their nationality.
It's not 'Javid's definition'. You don't seem to have got your head around the fact that this power has been in place for a long time and used many dozens of times. Maybe the power shouldn't exist, or should be subject to much greater restrictions - I think there's a strong argument for that - but let's not pretend that this is something which Javid has invented.
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').
The missing piece to that puzzle being that she was a child when she left. And is only just now not a child (the UN definition being anyone under 18). If you think the best way to help humanity is to abandon children who have been abused, then that is a view I don't share.
Yes, that's a sensible argument. I'm not actually defending Javid's action (I think it's arguable either way), just trying to distinguish between valid arguments and invalid ones.
Understand - I have accepted that it seems to be perfectly legal for Javid to have taken the action he did. Another fault line in the UK, I suppose.
I'd say it's still 50/50 whether this remains a temporary parliamentary thing or morphs into a new party or movement. A lot will depend on the public and polling response and whether they get backers, members and councillors.
Jeremy Hunt has seized on Labour’s split, claiming to European foreign ministers it proved that only concessions to win round Conservative rightwingers will get the Brexit deal through the Commons.
The Home Secretary also needs to be convinced they have acted in a manner "seriously prejudicial" to the interests of the UK.
And if someone like Corbyn were appointing the Home Secretary?
The law still applies and any decision is still reviewable by the courts. ...
I really think it would be better if the law prescribed specific conditions for depriving people of citizenship, rather than a vague one like "conducive to the public good". That's the case in the USA, incidentally.
We are a Common Law nation. No reason the courts can't apply common sense.
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.
You're surely not being serious about "common law" meaning the courts reach decisions based on "common sense" rather than law, are you? I never know when people are posting silly stuff just for amusement here.
Fortunately whether people have committed treason isn't decided by online comments (at least not yet). I hope this case will be properly examined at appeal, and it will be interesting to see the conclusion.
Actually to some extent he is correct. We do still have the situation where a jury can decide not to follow the law if it feels it is wrong. The judge is supposed to neutrally advise on the letter of the law but the jury does not have to follow his guidance if they choose not to.
Comments
And people are speaking about this as if Javid is creating a new law that could be exploited in the future. He's not he is using exist laws that were created by his predecessors.
If you don't like the law maybe campaign to get the law changed. But I don't think Javid is doing anything wrong implementing the existing law how he has.
Even if it did it wouldn't change the outcome in this case. Pretty sure treason and joining a proscribed terrorist group would be on the specific conditions list.
Liberals is an appropriate short hand for Liberal Democrats in the same way Tories are for The Conservative and Unionist Party.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1098177519457579008
It's a classic example of what happens when you leave devolution at the mercy of parochial sentiment. The unit should have been Greater Newcastle, both sides of the Tyne, which would have commanded a population of around one million.
Stupid.
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/shamima-begum-should-not-be-stripped-of-her-citizenship-1.480316
For all that, @Philip_Thompson is right, Javid is acting reasonably and doing the right thing by this country under the law as it stands. It's not exactly fair on Bangladesh, though, is it? A change to the law should be considered.
My point is that as a judgement, not legal call, I disagree with it.
- Irrational
- Disproportionate (whether at common law or HRA)
- Without due process
etc. etc.
The Home Secretary's ability to make it up as they go along is much smaller than it might appear.
Allen Soubry and Wollaston all join TIG
Wollaston's statement mentions right wing takeover/pandering to DUP and ERG. Positioning as the new Centrists?
https://news.sky.com/watch-live
But, I don’t really care -- let us ask the abundant members of the party on this board.
Certainly, when Gordon Brown in his charmless way referred to them endlessly as the Liberals, they objected.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1098178426601684992
I think Dr W would be the best leader for the Tiggers. Trust the good doctor!
Good riddance.
You disagree with it. I don't. She sacrificed her British citizenship when she went to fight for ISIS. I see no reason to bring her back. Her choice, her actions, she can live with the consequences.
I agree that we should remove the wasteful marketised competition in the NHS. Rail franchises should be allowed to expire so that our government can run the trains as opposed to the French, German, Dutch and Italian governments. Fine with the post office.
But utilities? "Fully Renationalise" Thames Water and the others? Are you mad? The policy in the manifesto was to set up state owned regional companies to out-compete the private monopolies, not to buy them. How many billions would that cost? And thats before their respective share prices soar knowing the government has committed to buy.
That of course is the policy. Not to purchase United Utilities. But to steal it. Too many of these cretins think we can just take these firms without compensation and everything will be fine.
THIS is why I am staying in the party. To save it from utter wazzocks like our candidate for the Mayor of North Tyneside
Conservative and Labour MPs will be looking around and thinking "who's next?". This thing could rapidly take on some momentum. (Small m.)
Incidentally, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that it used to be the case that women who married a foreigner automatically and immediately lost their British citizenship. (This happened to my mother, who because of her marriage during the war suddenly found that she had to report to the police station regularly as a 'foreign alien').
Durham, Gateshead, South Tyneside, and Sunderland Councils rejected it due to fears that Newcastle would be the only place to gain from it. Northumberland was only added to try to keep the scheme going.
I suspect its going to send Gateshead / Newcastle co-operation back decades...
Fortunately whether people have committed treason isn't decided by online comments (at least not yet). I hope this case will be properly examined at appeal, and it will be interesting to see the conclusion.
Oh well. Greater Northumberland it is.
Tory Party splits in the Commons.
LOL.
A smattering of preening ideologues (if they are good at it) can IMO be healthy for our politics but only so long as they don't gain power. A fine line to tread, I guess, since if they are VERY good at it they might well gain power.
One to watch - Nick Ferrari.
So hilarious how frit you are.
How many TIGgers can we look forward to? 20? 50? 100?
Severed heads in a bin? Not fazed.
She didn't leave ISIS. ISIS was defeated.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/brexit-labour-jeremy-hunt-eu
Jeremy Hunt has seized on Labour’s split, claiming to European foreign ministers it proved that only concessions to win round Conservative rightwingers will get the Brexit deal through the Commons.