politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Conservative approach. The seats that will decide whether the
Comments
-
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
I've never understood what's so precious about the UK with the minority nations continually bitching that there are more English in the Union than all of them put together, and the English don't pay them enough.SouthamObserver said:
Because right wing English nationalists control the Conservative party and Labour, which is also now an English party, is unelectable. For the Scots and the Northern Irish that has significant on-going implications. Either it leads to an entirely new constitutional arrangement or the UK comes to an end. Given the complete lack of political imagination that exists in Westminster, I expect it to be the latter.Sean_F said:
Why would the UK be done for?SouthamObserver said:
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.malcolmg said:
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.SouthamObserver said:
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.0 -
There are plenty of politically indecent remainers.Recidivist said:
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.Sean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Portsmouth South was also pretty sensational with Labour winning from third place. Likely Labour hold next time as anti-Tory vote consolidates behind the new Labour MP - plus first time incumbency bonus.IanB2 said:The utility of the traditional UNS model is breaking down, with the declining party allegiance and political volatility, particularly the shift away from class-based voting patterns. This is what made the last election difficult to predict at local level, with surprises such as Canterbury, Mansfield and Kensington for those who didn't trust the YouGov model. I don't see any reason why things should be different next time - indeed with TIG and potential electoral deals, the seats that might change hands could become even harder to identify in advance.
0 -
And the Remoaners are obviously delusional?Recidivist said:
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.Sean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Chris said:
I understood that your objection was to the general principle of politicians taking quasi-judicial decisions.Chris said:
And to respond to the substantive point, it's quite absurd to suggest that the courts would be incapable of dealing with the volume of requests from politicians to deprive British people of their citizenship.Sean_F said:
On the face of it, I consider that Javid's decision was a reasonable one (though of course, subsequent litigation may show that not to have been the case).kle4 said:
Our constitution has al/blockquote>Chris said:
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair a/blockquote>NickPalmer said:
+1.
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
IMHO, the Courts would be overwhelmed, if ministers could not take quasi-judicial decisions.
The latest figures I've seen are 100 per annum just a couple of years ago. Shockingly high in one sense, but obviously not a volume that would overwhelm the courts. Particularly as the advocates of this arbitrary power of the part of politicians are always so eager to point out that there is a right of appeal anyhow - albeit perhaps a right of appeal that may take years, and involve family members dying.0 -
No. We need to get the fraudsters out of public life - you know, those who stood for an election under a manifesto saying they would implement Brexit, when they clearly had no intention of doing any such thing. They will all have been remunerated by well in excess of £100k since their election in 2017. Why is that not Misconduct in a Public Office?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
He probably doesn't think you'll paymalcolmg said:
I assume that is a NOScott_P said:
In the next Holyrood seats?malcolmg said:Would you like a little wager on who goes up and who goes down SNP/Tories.
Until we know the fallout from Brexit (or not) it could go either way.
A bet right now would not be a strong indicator of belief in the result. And of course both could go up or down...0 -
0
-
Incumbency bonus is going to be case by case. There were some spectacularly bad Labour MPs elected in 2017....justin124 said:
Portsmouth South was also pretty sensational with Labour winning from third place. Likely Labour hold next time as anti-Tory vote consolidates behind the new Labour MP - plus first time incumbency bonus.IanB2 said:The utility of the traditional UNS model is breaking down, with the declining party allegiance and political volatility, particularly the shift away from class-based voting patterns. This is what made the last election difficult to predict at local level, with surprises such as Canterbury, Mansfield and Kensington for those who didn't trust the YouGov model. I don't see any reason why things should be different next time - indeed with TIG and potential electoral deals, the seats that might change hands could become even harder to identify in advance.
0 -
SouthamObserver said:
Yep - Corbyn Labour guarantees Tory governments. Until Labour members decide that’s not a good thing nothing changes.
But you were predicting 160 - 180 seats for Labour just an hour before the release of the Exit Poll - indeed even two hours later you were inclined to rubbish it!SouthamObserver said:Yep - Corbyn Labour guarantees Tory governments. Until Labour members decide that’s not a good thing nothing changes.
0 -
-
CUCKOO ALERTReggieCide said:
I've never understood what's so precious about the UK with the minority nations continually bitching that there are more English in the Union than all of them put together, and the English don't pay them enough.SouthamObserver said:
Because right wing English nationalists control the Conservative party and Labour, which is also now an English party, is unelectable. For the Scots and the Northern Irish that has significant on-going implications. Either it leads to an entirely new constitutional arrangement or the UK comes to an end. Given the complete lack of political imagination that exists in Westminster, I expect it to be the latter.Sean_F said:
Why would the UK be done for?SouthamObserver said:
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.malcolmg said:
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.SouthamObserver said:
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.0 -
According to Pepys, it'll probably be oatsScott_P said:0 -
I'm not sure which constituencies have large numbers of young people who are not students - some deprived inner city constituencies perhaps.NeilVW said:
Sir John Curtice has done this analysis, in the Cowley/Kavanagh GE 2017 book.another_richard said:
The 2017 GE wasn't all about Brexit.OblitusSumMe said:Thinking about the last election, the curious aspect was that Labour was able to win Leave seats like Peterborough despite Brexit (on small swings) and strong Remain seats like Canterbury (on huge swings).
I wonder whether there was a tendency for Leave voters to discount Brexit when voting because they already had what they wanted (or thought they did) whereas for Remain voters it felt more urgent to vote on Brexit lines (and for whatever reason Labour was perceived to be the best Remain option).
This means that if the next election is fought in an atmosphere of Brexit being lost, or in real peril, then one might expect Leave voters to be more motivated to vote on Brexit lines than Remain voters. This suggests that an election will be bad for whichever side temporarily has the upper hand. If MPs are aware of this then it makes any election exceptionally unlikely, but if one does happen it is likely to increase political instability rather than decrease it - and this is likely to be the case until a compromise can be reached that is acceptable to both sides. Is that possible within the next decade? I have my doubts.
The reason why Labour gained Canterbury (which was only a marginal Remain constituency) was because of Labour's student fees promises.
It would be interesting to correlate the 2017 results by number of students in each constituency.
...the Conservatives performed less well and Labour better in seats with more young adults - though once we take this into account, there is no indication...that constituencies with large numbers of students were particularly likely to swing towards the [Labour] party.
But if you compare the Reading constituencies, as an example, Labour did much better in the student heavy Reading East.0 -
caps gives it awaymalcolmg said:
CUCKOO ALERTReggieCide said:
I've never understood what's so precious about the UK with the minority nations continually bitching that there are more English in the Union than all of them put together, and the English don't pay them enough.SouthamObserver said:
Because right wing English nationalists control the Conservative party and Labour, which is also now an English party, is unelectable. For the Scots and the Northern Irish that has significant on-going implications. Either it leads to an entirely new constitutional arrangement or the UK comes to an end. Given the complete lack of political imagination that exists in Westminster, I expect it to be the latter.Sean_F said:
Why would the UK be done for?SouthamObserver said:
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.malcolmg said:
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.SouthamObserver said:
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.0 -
Just got latest Council Tax statement from Newcastle City Council. Northumbria Police and Crime Commisionier are increasing their tax by over 20%! What is that even paying for?0
-
-
That comment says a lot about you and none of it pleasant. Crawl back under your rock.ReggieCide said:
He probably doesn't think you'll paymalcolmg said:
I assume that is a NOScott_P said:
In the next Holyrood seats?malcolmg said:Would you like a little wager on who goes up and who goes down SNP/Tories.
Until we know the fallout from Brexit (or not) it could go either way.
A bet right now would not be a strong indicator of belief in the result. And of course both could go up or down...0 -
Final salary pensions.Gallowgate said:Just got latest Council Tax statement from Newcastle City Council. Northumbria Police and Crime Commisionier are increasing their tax by over 20%! What is that even paying for?
0 -
Well it all started from the Remainers refusing to accept the result of the Referendum. And that is 'just not cricket'.Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
strong on imagination as usual - no sense of reality but happy to be judgementalmalcolmg said:
That comment says a lot about you and none of it pleasant. Crawl back under your rock.ReggieCide said:
He probably doesn't think you'll paymalcolmg said:
I assume that is a NOScott_P said:
In the next Holyrood seats?malcolmg said:Would you like a little wager on who goes up and who goes down SNP/Tories.
Until we know the fallout from Brexit (or not) it could go either way.
A bet right now would not be a strong indicator of belief in the result. And of course both could go up or down...0 -
You demonstrate the point.ReggieCide said:
And the Remoaners are obviously delusional?Recidivist said:
The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.Sean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Green cheese there because I have lots more than a loser like you. Get a job and try to emulate me rather than press your twisted jealous face against the window wishing you were loaded.ReggieCide said:0 -
Obviously I didn't say that. I know the quote facility can be a bit of a pain when the messages get too long, but please don't make it appear that people have said things that they haven't.Sean_F said:
I understood that your objection was to the general principle of politicians taking quasi-judicial decisions.Chris said:
And to respond to the substantive point, it's quite absurd to suggest that the courts would be incapable of dealing with the volume of requests from politicians to deprive British people of their citizenship.Chris said:
On the face of it, I consider that Javid's decision was a reasonable one (though of course, subsequent litigation may show that not to have been the case).Sean_F said:
Our constitution has al/blockquote>kle4 said:
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
IMHO, the Courts would be overwhelmed, if ministers could not take quasi-judicial decisions.
The latest figures I've seen are 100 per annum just a couple of years ago. Shockingly high in one sense, but obviously not a volume that would overwhelm the courts. Particularly as the advocates of this arbitrary power of the part of politicians are always so eager to point out that there is a right of appeal anyhow - albeit perhaps a right of appeal that may take years, and involve family members dying.0 -
SouthamObserver said:
On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
I disagree there. 2017 was not a Brexit election despite it being May's justification for calling it. People were already sick to death of the subject and very receptive to other issues being raised by Corbyn. I will be surprised if it features more prominently in the next campaign beyond the first week.Attitudes to Corbyn were much more salient than Brexit . He was clearly very much a marmite facor - being highly repellant to traditional white working class voters whilst engaging the young and previous non-voters.SouthamObserver said:On tòpic, I think Alastair underestimates how many people voted Labour in 2017 to prevent the kind of Brexit May was advocating. If the next General Election takes place after we’ve left - which it almost certainly will - that reason goes away. I think turnout next time will be very interesting to keep an eye on.
0 -
Grow up!malcolmg said:
Green cheese there because I have lots more than a loser like you. Get a job and try to emulate me rather than press your twisted jealous face against the window wishing you were loaded.ReggieCide said:0 -
Get lostReggieCide said:
Grow up!malcolmg said:
Green cheese there because I have lots more than a loser like you. Get a job and try to emulate me rather than press your twisted jealous face against the window wishing you were loaded.ReggieCide said:0 -
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
The Tories will be helped significantly in Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green by the Anti-Semitic row.Sean_F said:
The Tories won't find it hard to defend Harrow East, Hendon, and Finchley & Golders Green. That leaves Richmond a likely loss, Chipping Barnet, ditto, Chingford, and Putney which I'd expect them to hold (though much will turn on whether Justine Greening runs as an independent)IanB2 said:London is heading the way of most other large UK cities and the Tories will find most of their defences exceptionally difficult, whatever.
On the other side of the ledger, I'd expect them to regain Kensington, and for Battersea to be very tight.0 -
You can have too much fun, so I shall - byemalcolmg said:
Get lostReggieCide said:
Grow up!malcolmg said:
Green cheese there because I have lots more than a loser like you. Get a job and try to emulate me rather than press your twisted jealous face against the window wishing you were loaded.ReggieCide said:0 -
It all started with the heavy use of lies by the leave campaign during the campaign itself. I remember the last campaign. It was a lot more civilised.TheAncientMariner said:
Well it all started from the Remainers refusing to accept the result of the Referendum. And that is 'just not cricket'.Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Can someone please take TSE's belt and shoelaces....0
-
You will not be missed cretinReggieCide said:
You can have too much fun, so I shall - byemalcolmg said:
Get lostReggieCide said:
Grow up!malcolmg said:
Green cheese there because I have lots more than a loser like you. Get a job and try to emulate me rather than press your twisted jealous face against the window wishing you were loaded.ReggieCide said:0 -
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
And again - regarding the substantial point - I think it would be far better if important decisions such as these were taken judicially, not by politicians such as Sajid Javid. The right of judicial appeal is of very little consolation if people end up being wrongly deprived of citizenship for years, and if family members die as a result of the decision.Sean_F said:
I understood that your objection was to the general principle of politicians taking quasi-judicial decisions.Chris said:
And to respond to the substantive point, it's quite absurd to suggest that the courts would be incapable of dealing with the volume of requests from politicians to deprive British people of their citizenship.Chris said:
On the face of it, I consider that Javid's decision was a reasonable one (though of course, subsequent litigation may show that not to have been the case).Sean_F said:
Our constitution has al/blockquote>kle4 said:
I can understand why politicians want it that way. And I dont think most people have a problem with how so long as they agree with who it is done to or more commonly dont hear about it.
I'm not a fan of politician pardons either.
But of course in this case the legislation originally specified very particular grounds on which the political decisions should be taken. And then subsequently they were amended to make the criteria much wider and vaguer. I'd suggest that because politicians as a group are such absolute scumbags and have a natural tendency to act in accordance with their own political interests, it would be best to keep their discretion to an absolute minimum.
And of course, it's little consolation that these quasi-judicial decisions by politicians may be overturned by the courts a year or two later, if in the meantime people may have died as a result of them. Wouldn't it be better to have procedures in place designed to make sure the decision is right in the first place? Rather than making provision for an arbitrary decision by a politician like Sajid Javid to be reconsidered later - perhaps years later - by the judiciary?
IMHO, the Courts would be overwhelmed, if ministers could not take quasi-judicial decisions.
The latest figures I've seen are 100 per annum just a couple of years ago. Shockingly high in one sense, but obviously not a volume that would overwhelm the courts. Particularly as the advocates of this arbitrary power of the part of politicians are always so eager to point out that there is a right of appeal anyhow - albeit perhaps a right of appeal that may take years, and involve family members dying.
What I was pointing out is that the objection about the courts being overwhelmed was sheer nonsense.0 -
OK, he can keep his laces....0
-
The sale of Picasso's L'Enfant aux Pigeon was actually very controversial.DecrepitJohnL said:
"The family of" sounds a bit vague. Does it mean immediate family or are we talking about second cousins twice removed?AlastairMeeks said:
We already know that Corbyn is surrounded by posh millionaires. Is this news or just gossip?
It was on permanent loan & displayed in the National Gallery from 1974 t0 2010.
However, the permanent loan turned out not to be permanent when the Aberconway's (a Scottish family who own large tracts of North Wales) wanted more money. It was a greedy and selfish decision to sell it to the Qataris. The NG would have offered money, but could not compete with the Qataris.
Laura Murray is a direct descendent of the Aberconways through her grandmother Dame Anne Mclaren and grandfather Don Michie (both very distinguished left-wing academics). Laura will have had an EXTREMELY privileged upbringing.
I think it would be interesting to see if there is anyone middle income, let alone working class, in Corby's entourage.
0 -
I'd say that Luciana Berger standing in Hendon may be TIG's best chance of winning a seat at the next GE.justin124 said:
The Tories will be helped significantly in Hendon and Finchley & Golders Green by the Anti-Semitic row.Sean_F said:
The Tories won't find it hard to defend Harrow East, Hendon, and Finchley & Golders Green. That leaves Richmond a likely loss, Chipping Barnet, ditto, Chingford, and Putney which I'd expect them to hold (though much will turn on whether Justine Greening runs as an independent)IanB2 said:London is heading the way of most other large UK cities and the Tories will find most of their defences exceptionally difficult, whatever.
On the other side of the ledger, I'd expect them to regain Kensington, and for Battersea to be very tight.
0 -
" My lies good. Your lies bad. "Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
Repeated by every loser after every election.0 -
Yep, I imagine that is an increasingly pervasive view inside the Conservative party.ReggieCide said:
I've never understood what's so precious about the UK with the minority nations continually bitching that there are more English in the Union than all of them put together, and the English don't pay them enough.SouthamObserver said:
Because right wing English nationalists control the Conservative party and Labour, which is also now an English party, is unelectable. For the Scots and the Northern Irish that has significant on-going implications. Either it leads to an entirely new constitutional arrangement or the UK comes to an end. Given the complete lack of political imagination that exists in Westminster, I expect it to be the latter.Sean_F said:
Why would the UK be done for?SouthamObserver said:
There is little to no hope. The UK in its current form is done for. The only issue is whether it will all happen before or after our relationship with the EU is sorted. I was born a UK citizen. If I live my three score and 10 I expect to die an English one.malcolmg said:
It makes you despair , 3 absolute no-users, thicker than pig sh** in the neck of a bottle. What hope for UK if that is the cream of the crop for the Tories.SouthamObserver said:
Most of the cabinet is now interested in one thing only: the next Conservative party leadership election. Williamson, Hunt and Javed are the most transparent in this respect. Everything they say and do is done through the prism of how it will be seen by Tory members.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
0 -
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.another_richard said:
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
In most elections, people are campaigning for office, so know they can be held to account in future. In contrast 2016 was a campaign for a revolutionary moment, which Brexiteers thought would create its own new reality and therefore they could lie with impunity.Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .Scott_P said:0 -
Good point but there must have been a fair few to justify Curtice’s analysis, one assumes.another_richard said:
I'm not sure which constituencies have large numbers of young people who are not students - some deprived inner city constituencies perhaps.NeilVW said:
Sir John Curtice has done this analysis, in the Cowley/Kavanagh GE 2017 book.another_richard said:
The 2017 GE wasn't all about Brexit.OblitusSumMe said:Thinking about the last election, the curious aspect was that Labour was able to win Leave seats like Peterborough despite Brexit (on small swings) and strong Remain seats like Canterbury (on huge swings).
I wonder whether there was a tendency for Leave voters to discount Brexit when voting because they already had what they wanted (or thought they did) whereas for Remain voters it felt more urgent to vote on Brexit lines (and for whatever reason Labour was perceived to be the best Remain option).
This means that if the next election is fought in an atmosphere of Brexit being lost, or in real peril, then one might expect Leave voters to be more motivated to vote on Brexit lines than Remain voters. This suggests that an election will be bad for whichever side temporarily has the upper hand. If MPs are aware of this then it makes any election exceptionally unlikely, but if one does happen it is likely to increase political instability rather than decrease it - and this is likely to be the case until a compromise can be reached that is acceptable to both sides. Is that possible within the next decade? I have my doubts.
The reason why Labour gained Canterbury (which was only a marginal Remain constituency) was because of Labour's student fees promises.
It would be interesting to correlate the 2017 results by number of students in each constituency.
...the Conservatives performed less well and Labour better in seats with more young adults - though once we take this into account, there is no indication...that constituencies with large numbers of students were particularly likely to swing towards the [Labour] party.
But if you compare the Reading constituencies, as an example, Labour did much better in the student heavy Reading East.
Striking contrast in the Leave vote between Reading East (39%) and West (51%) - influenced by students/young people presumably.0 -
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
His lips move.
Victorian joke.0 -
Never been truer than today though.ydoethur said:
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
His lips move.
Victorian joke.0 -
Another day, another day the Cult spending raging about the exact class that Jess Philips belongs to:
https://twitter.com/DeborahJaneOrr/status/1104687519881461761
(see the thread responses).
0 -
Not quite true Malcolm. These days some politicians are women.malcolmg said:
Never been truer than today though.ydoethur said:
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
His lips move.
Victorian joke.0 -
It is an enormous disappointment that more of these hypocrites did not have the courage to join the Tiggers and thus remove themselves from public life.MarqueeMark said:
No. We need to get the fraudsters out of public life - you know, those who stood for an election under a manifesto saying they would implement Brexit, when they clearly had no intention of doing any such thing. They will all have been remunerated by well in excess of £100k since their election in 2017. Why is that not Misconduct in a Public Office?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/11047021169065738240 -
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.0 -
Jeez, it's a bit grumpy in here today. Cheer up, it might happen/might never happen (delete as applicable for your Brexit/Scottish independence/Corbyn government positions of choice).0
-
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
Maybe that isn't the way it should be, but that's the way it is.0 -
Still, it's not only the cultists who're saying REALLY dumb shit about Jess.rottenborough said:Another day, another day the Cult spending raging about the exact class that Jess Philips belongs to:
https://twitter.com/DeborahJaneOrr/status/1104687519881461761
(see the thread responses).
https://twitter.com/aijiujoe/status/11044234512286269460 -
This one is good. Been a while since I've seen 'extreme centrism'.rottenborough said:Another day, another day the Cult spending raging about the exact class that Jess Philips belongs to:
https://twitter.com/DeborahJaneOrr/status/1104687519881461761
(see the thread responses).
https://twitter.com/Magnieboy/status/11046952315455569930 -
I've never been a fan of judicial review. It is a focus on process rather than substance. Provided the right boxes are ticked the decision is unchallengeable. What is needed (and I think in fairness we have here) is a substantive appeal where the merits can be properly examined and challenged.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.0 -
I've never been a fan of judicial review. It is a focus on process rather than substance. Provided the right boxes are ticked the decision is unchallengeable. What is needed (and I think in fairness we have here) is a substantive appeal where the merits can be properly examined and challenged.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.0 -
That spinning noise is Aristotle turning in his grave.kle4 said:
This one is good. Been a while since I've seen 'extreme centrism'.rottenborough said:Another day, another day the Cult spending raging about the exact class that Jess Philips belongs to:
https://twitter.com/DeborahJaneOrr/status/1104687519881461761
(see the thread responses).
https://twitter.com/Magnieboy/status/11046952315455569930 -
Lots of factors in every constituency.NeilVW said:
Good point but there must have been a fair few to justify Curtice’s analysis, one assumes.another_richard said:
I'm not sure which constituencies have large numbers of young people who are not students - some deprived inner city constituencies perhaps.NeilVW said:
Sir John Curtice has done this analysis, in the Cowley/Kavanagh GE 2017 book.another_richard said:
The 2017 GE wasn't all about Brexit.OblitusSumMe said:Thinking about the last election, the curious aspect was that Labour was able to win Leave seats like Peterborough despite Brexit (on small swings) and strong Remain seats like Canterbury (on huge swings).
I wonder whether there was a tendency for Leave voters to discount Brexit when voting because they already had what they wanted (or thought they did) whereas for Remain voters it felt more urgent to vote on Brexit lines (and for whatever reason Labour was perceived to be the best Remain option).
This means that if the next election is fought in an atmosphere of Brexit being lost, or in real peril, then one might expect Leave voters to be more motivated to vote on Brexit lines than Remain voters. This suggests that an election will be bad for whichever side temporarily has the upper hand. If MPs are aware of this then it makes any election exceptionally unlikely, but if one does happen it is likely to increase political instability rather than decrease it - and this is likely to be the case until a compromise can be reached that is acceptable to both sides. Is that possible within the next decade? I have my doubts.
The reason why Labour gained Canterbury (which was only a marginal Remain constituency) was because of Labour's student fees promises.
It would be interesting to correlate the 2017 results by number of students in each constituency.
...the Conservatives performed less well and Labour better in seats with more young adults - though once we take this into account, there is no indication...that constituencies with large numbers of students were particularly likely to swing towards the [Labour] party.
But if you compare the Reading constituencies, as an example, Labour did much better in the student heavy Reading East.
Striking contrast in the Leave vote between Reading East (39%) and West (51%) - influenced by students/young people presumably.
It should be noted that Canterbury has an especially high number of students:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/canterbury/
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.0 -
The one thing that Cameron and May have in common is having played things sub optimally in order to hold their party together.Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
Yes, there is a right of appeal. That's something.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
But it's very different from due process being followed in the first place. Particularly if someone dies as a result of the original decision.
I wonder whether anyone can make an argument for the decision in the first instance being made by a politician rather than a court.0 -
It's a very small city with two very large universities. Does anyone know whether similar analysis was carried out for Ceredigion which is the nearest parallel I can think of?another_richard said:Lots of factors in every constituency.
It should be noted that Canterbury has an especially high number of students:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/canterbury/
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.
That was though a classic example of what I was discussing upthread with those Corbynistas - they agree something is wrong, but deny any responsibility or need to think when challenged to say, 'well, what should we do instead?' Corbyn and Labour think 'tuition fees = bad.' And do you know what? They're right. But they had no proposals to replace them. Therefore, their statement is meaningless.
With railways it's easier, as most people agree track and trains should be integrated.0 -
I expect we shall see it again. Even if called out as not meaning what some are suggesting it means all it does it put focus on 'Labour want to help students, Tories do not'.another_richard said:
Lots of factors in every constituency.NeilVW said:
Good point but there must have been a fair few to justify Curtice’s analysis, one assumes.another_richard said:
I'm not sure which constituencies have large numbers of young people who are not students - some deprived inner city constituencies perhaps.NeilVW said:
Sir John Curtice has done this analysis, in the Cowley/Kavanagh GE 2017 book.another_richard said:
The 2017 GE wasn't all about Brexit.OblitusSumMe said:Thinking about the last election, the curious aspect was that Labour was able to win Leave seats like Peterborough despite Brexit (on small swings) and strong Remain seats like Canterbury (on huge swings).
I wonder whether there was a tendency for Leave voters to discount Brexit when voting because they already had what they wanted (or thought they did) whereas for Remain voters it felt more urgent to vote on Brexit lines (and for whatever reason Labour was perceived to be the best Remain option).
This means thatmy doubts.
The reason why Labour gained Canterbury (which was only a marginal Remain constituency) was because of Labour's student fees promises.
It would be interesting to correlate the 2017 results by number of students in each constituency.
...the Conservatives performed less well and Labour better in seats with more young adults - though once we take this into account, there is no indication...that constituencies with large numbers of students were particularly likely to swing towards the [Labour] party.
But if you compare the Reading constituencies, as an example, Labour did much better in the student heavy Reading East.
Striking contrast in the Leave vote between Reading East (39%) and West (51%) - influenced by students/young people presumably.
It should be noted that Canterbury has an especially high number of students:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/canterbury/
It seems beyond all logic to me that Labour's student fees promises wouldn't have had a significant effect there.
As election bribes go it was one of the most significant I've ever seen.0 -
The Government and Parliament gave PCCs and the Mayor of London the power to increase their police precepts by £24. As the Government isn't willing to fund more police the council taxpayer has to foot the bill - as they have been doing increasingly in recent years.another_richard said:
Final salary pensions.Gallowgate said:Just got latest Council Tax statement from Newcastle City Council. Northumbria Police and Crime Commisionier are increasing their tax by over 20%! What is that even paying for?
Police cost money I am afraid - and yes they do get pensions too.
Central government has delivered austerity by passing the biggest cuts onto local government including social care and childrens services, policing and fire - i.e. they devolved austerity. And we have all seen the consequences - particularly in terms of crime and the shocking state of the adult social care system.
It is crazy to cut social care funding by 40% and increase NHS funding - because keeping an elderly person at home is cheaper than keeping them in hospital.0 -
Wait until the government fails to fund the huge employer pension contributions rise for teachers. They are going up by the small matter of 43.08% from September 1st. Possibly the same increase again for 2020-21. The government has promised to fund them centrally this year, but if they have made the same promise for 2020 I've missed it.brendan16 said:
The Government and Parliament gave PCCs and the Mayor of London the power to increase their police precepts by £24. As the Government isn't willing to fund more police the council taxpayer has to foot the bill - as they have been doing increasingly in recent years.another_richard said:
Final salary pensions.Gallowgate said:Just got latest Council Tax statement from Newcastle City Council. Northumbria Police and Crime Commisionier are increasing their tax by over 20%! What is that even paying for?
Police cost money I am afraid - and yes they do get pensions too.
Central government has delivered austerity by passing the biggest cuts onto local government including social care and childrens services, policing and fire - i.e. the devolved austerity. And we have all seen the consequences - particularly in terms of crime and the shocking state of the adult social care system.
It is crazy to cut social care funding by 40% and increase NHS funding - because keeping an elderly person at home is cheaper than keeping them in hospital.
A phrase about fans and shit springs to mind.0 -
It is the job of our politicians to keep us safe and to oversee our security apparatus, and removing citizenship is one of the ways intended to keep us safe. Additionally, do we want something as significant as removing citizenship to be undertaken by bureaucrats and the unelected when our elected officials are the guarantors of our rights as citizens and therefore an elected person should ultimately make the call if the ultimate right of citizenship is taken away?Chris said:
Yes, there is a right of appeal. That's something.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
But it's very different from due process being followed in the first place. Particularly if someone dies as a result of the original decision.
I wonder whether anyone can make an argument for the decision in the first instance being made by a politician rather than a court.
I'd prefer it not be the Home Secretary or a politician, but I'm sure others can make an even stronger argument than above.0 -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/09/jeremy-corbyn-poison-says-interfaith-expert-former-government/
Slow hand clap
Well done Labour, well done.0 -
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.ydoethur said:
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.0 -
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)Chris said:
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.ydoethur said:
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.0 -
Oddly these were the same sorts of arguments used to deny women the vote a century ago - they cannot be trusted to vote as 'they are too impulsive' or 'lack numeracy skills' or whatever. Those arguments were as dumb then as they are now.nico67 said:
Just confirms data post referendum. It might be uncomfortable for Leavers but the stats on education and vote is strongly correlated . That’s not to say some dumb people also voted Remain , but taken as a whole the Leave vote had more dumb people .Scott_P said:
Being good at maths doesn't seem to be a strong point for many MPs. And are we saying people who think on their feet and act quickly don't have value - isn't that useful in a firefighter, an emergency doctor, a soldier etc. They don't have time to spend days writing opinion pieces for the Guardian
And of course the old argument about having a degree is trotted out - ignoring the fact now that nearly half of young people (who mostly voted remain) have one and less than 10% of over 65s have one (as back then having a degree really meant some).
My mother never got a degree - no one did in her generation - but she served as a nurse and midwife in the NHS for 25 years. She voted leave (my dad voted remain) - and while maybe she isn't the world's greatest mathematician and occasionally had to take swift action as a midwife during difficult births - but I think she has earned her vote.
She has certainly added more value to the world than someone who writes opinion pieces in the Guardian for a living.
So lets stop the sneering please - remain votes by definition aren't 'better people'. They just voted remain - some are wonderful people some aren't and some write for the Guardian!0 -
The choice is between a court and a politician, I think.kle4 said:
It is the job of our politicians to keep us safe and to oversee our security apparatus, and removing citizenship is one of the ways intended to keep us safe. Additionally, do we want something as significant as removing citizenship to be undertaken by bureaucrats and the unelected when our elected officials are the guarantors of our rights as citizens and therefore an elected person should ultimately make the call if the ultimate right of citizenship is taken away?Chris said:
Yes, there is a right of appeal. That's something.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.NickPalmer said:
+1.Chris said:All very depressing.
But I suppose there should be a crumb of comfort in the fact that no one - so far - has disputed my suggestion that if bringing the mothers and children back to Britain had received strong public support, the government would have brought them back.
In other words, what has happened has happened because of political considerations.
One would hope that - regardless of political viewpoints about any particular issue - people could agree that it would be better if such decisions were made by the judiciary rather than by politicians. Surely that's pretty much what "the rule of law" means.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
But it's very different from due process being followed in the first place. Particularly if someone dies as a result of the original decision.
I wonder whether anyone can make an argument for the decision in the first instance being made by a politician rather than a court.
I'd prefer it not be the Home Secretary or a politician, but I'm sure others can make an even stronger argument than above.0 -
ydoethur said:
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
I'd be surprised if there was ever a time when politicians were high-minded, serious, and impartial servants of the people who set aside partisan considerations to do the right thing (perhaps WW2).ydoethur said:
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
His lips move.
Victorian joke.0 -
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.ydoethur said:
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)Chris said:
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.ydoethur said:
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.0 -
That’s a good point about Brexit Party. I guess that most people still associate Farage with UKIP, and if given the option of Farage’s Brexit Party or Tommy Robinson’s UKIP would tend to go for the former.justin124 said:
It is actually pretty poor compared with what the SDP was recording in similar hypothetical polls back in March/April 1981.The novelty appeal tends to wear off pretty quickly unless reinforced on a regular basis. Doubtless these figures arise from prompted questions in that Comres have included TIG as an option. Why no mention of Brexit Party though? Sounds somewhat inconsistent given that the latter do actually formally exist as a political party.rottenborough said:
8% from a standing start is pretty impressive. Will it hold?Gardenwalker said:
TIG-LD-Green alliance still haven’t broken 20%.rottenborough said:0 -
This wasn't a party political election. This was a major change to Britain's place in the world. It should have been treated as a serious debate not a knockabout for bad boys or a lever for particular politician's ambitions.another_richard said:
" My lies good. Your lies bad. "Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
Repeated by every loser after every election.0 -
Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).0 -
This is why any second referendum is doomed. The politicians who lost by fighting a purely negative campaign have perversely concluded they were not negative enough.Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
For F1 aficionados, a decent article on the estimable Robert Kubica:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/10/robert-kubica-f1-return-williams-nothing-giving-up0 -
You’re probably right there, but I wouldn’t rule out a 2nd May election just yet. Some big decisions are happening this week, and it’s not inconceivable that the government has no majority by Friday.justin124 said:
Almost certainly too late for an April election now given that an election would have to be announced by next Wednesday for Polling Day to be 18th April. Unlikely that 25th April would be chosen as Local Elections are already scheduled for 2nd May.Sandpit said:Good piece Alastair. I know nobody except Corbyn wants it, but a summer or autumn election could still happen by accident. We could even get one in April.
The DUP have said they will vote against the government in a vote of confidence, if any deal with a backstop passes a ‘meaningful vote’, so we could have an almighty constitutional crisis as soon as this week.
Add in the Independent Group, and a couple more Con defections there leaves Con + DUP with no majority, and a whole pile of urgent legislation that needs to be passed.0 -
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).Chris said:
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.ydoethur said:
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)Chris said:
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.ydoethur said:
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.0 -
Even poor safety and maintenance can’t be to blame for a two year old aircraft failing.ydoethur said:Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).0 -
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.ydoethur said:Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...0 -
I think it's five months, not two years.notme2 said:
Even poor safety and maintenance can’t be to blame for a two year old aircraft failing.ydoethur said:Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
This is starting to look distinctly strange, and disturbing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-10/ethiopian-airlines-flight-to-nairobi-crashes-after-takeoff0 -
The sentiment predates British democracy - ‘this vile politician, Bolingbroke’... and no doubt the ancient Greeks expressed similar sentiments.ydoethur said:
How can you tell when a politician is telling you a lie?Sean_F said:
It's certainly been a part of most election campaigns in my lifetime. Parties tell half-truths, grossly exaggerate their own virtues and their opponents' vices, and campaign against straw men.Recidivist said:
Lying isn't democratic.Floater said:
Not exactly democratic is heSean_F said:
So, your solution to a lack of political decency is to try and shut half the population out of public life?Recidivist said:
I think he's right. We need to get the Brexiters out of public life.SouthamObserver said:This is depressingly true ...
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1104702116906573824
His lips move.
Victorian joke.
0 -
Especially worrying as there had been so few deaths in air crashes recently.notme2 said:
Even poor safety and maintenance can’t be to blame for a two year old aircraft failing.ydoethur said:Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).0 -
The SDP was of course boosted by various by elections - which increased their profile and made them appear electable as they were winning everywhere from Croydon to Glasgow to Merseyside. I doubt the Tiggers will get that chance - as I doubt they could mount a serious challenge on that scale.Sandpit said:
That’s a good point about Brexit Party. I guess that most people still associate Farage with UKIP, and if given the option of Farage’s Brexit Party or Tommy Robinson’s UKIP would tend to go for the former.justin124 said:
It is actually pretty poor compared with what the SDP was recording in similar hypothetical polls back in March/April 1981.The novelty appeal tends to wear off pretty quickly unless reinforced on a regular basis. Doubtless these figures arise from prompted questions in that Comres have included TIG as an option. Why no mention of Brexit Party though? Sounds somewhat inconsistent given that the latter do actually formally exist as a political party.rottenborough said:
8% from a standing start is pretty impressive. Will it hold?Gardenwalker said:
TIG-LD-Green alliance still haven’t broken 20%.rottenborough said:
As for UKIP there are so many offshoots now as well as Batten's UKIP. If we do end up having to elect MEPs is time allocated and election broadcast allocations based on the 2014 European results or the last general election? Does Farage's party really have any capacity to run a national list in barely two months time.
And of course many of the most pro Brexit areas have the smallest MEP allocations - the North east only has 4 seats (i.e. you potentially need 25% of the local vote to get one MEP) and the east midlands 6 whereas London has ten and the south east has 11 (i.e. potentially less than 10% is sufficient). Its much harder to win seats in the former than the latter if the vote is split - its that quirk that resulted in the Lib Dems getting their sole MEP last time (in the largest south east region) and UKIP getting Gerald Batten elected in London.
Farage could as a result end up being a group of one - elected in the south east region!0 -
I doubt we will ever see Cameron's autobiography in print. His decision to hold the referendum look s more and more disastrous and we now know that many of his closest colleagues advised against it. He will find it impossible to advance any kind of justification and without that the book would be pointless, Hamlet without the Prince or Othelloe without the Moor.Theuniondivvie said:
Cameron's self imposed omerta is beginning to look a bit weird. His autobiography has been postponed form last year to some undefined point this year. The new BBC Scotland channel has a documentary on the Indy ref and apparently Cameron is the only major figure who refused to be interviewed on the subject. You'd think he'd at least want to blow his own trumpet about his one (from a Tory Unionist pov) unarguable success.another_richard said:
Perhaps because Cameron was "a Fucking Liar" himself ?Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
The problem is that leaving hasn't been treated as a serious political project by either side. The referendum should not have been called in the first place before a plan was in place for either outcome. That error could have been corrected by responding to the result by working out a plan before any action was taken. As it is we have blundered into it. If you were serious about leaving you would be arguing to postpone it and do it properly. You do come across leave supporting individuals online who agree. But the elected leavers seem oblivious to practicalities.DecrepitJohnL said:
This is why any second referendum is doomed. The politicians who lost by fighting a purely negative campaign have perversely concluded they were not negative enough.Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...0 -
Inevitably for the story, Jack Grealish scores....0
-
So far they're being very guarded in what they say:JosiasJessop said:
And from first sight (and therefore probably wrong), it looks like in a similar flight regime.ydoethur said:Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
The LionAir crash near the end of last year was at least partially due to the fact Boeing had changed the way the plane flies in certain circumstances without informing pilots - rather a vital thing.
I daresay there's some squeaky bums in Seattle today ...
https://www.boeing.com
Between the lines, I'd say they're pretty worried and so they should be.0 -
Why ministers and not courts?Sean_F said:
Ministers often have to act on the basis of intelligence they receive, in order to refuse someone permission to enter the country, or to deport them, and I think it's important to have that discretion (subject to appeal).Chris said:
I was always taught there was a separation of powers, but an imperfect one. No doubt there's no perfect solution, but I think the less involvement politicians have in decisions about the treatment of individuals, rather than general matters of policy, the better.ydoethur said:
Any decision can be appealed, for example to the Supreme Court (stupid name, btw). I am pointing out that there is no separation of powers as there is in e.g. the US or the EU. (And incidentally I think that is a bad system, but it is the system we have.)Chris said:
Sorry, but I think whatever powers the Home Secretary has in depriving Britons of their citizenship are specific ones arising from statute law, and if they appeal he has no further jurisdiction.ydoethur said:
I think one thing people are forgetting is that in this country the Crown is the ultimate arbiter of such things, and the Home Secretary is the representative of the crown in matters relating to domestic law. Therefore the Home Secretary is de facto the senior judge in the land.Sandpit said:
There would still be a need for a way to initiate the process.Chris said:
For the record - the law is it stands is as much owing to Labour amendments (2003 and 2006) as it is to Tory/Lib Dem ones (2114).kle4 said:
I hate to go there, but why did Blair and Brown not remove this power when they had the chance? I know there would be other priorities but seems like their inclinations were to be harder rather than softer in such matters. I could see Corbyn intending to change it, but I can also see many of his MPs backing the law as it stands and the security services lobbying hard not to change it.
I really don't understand why anyone would want such decisions to be made by politicians rather than judges.
IIUI there is a mandatory right of appeal by someone stripped of their citizenship, which amounts in practice to a judicial review of the politician’s decision. The system would be much harder to defend without that automatic right of appeal.
I keep thinking there are some things so self-evident that no one will dispute them, but then people dispute them.0 -
Except the problem is that the most likely option to be up against remain will have been subjected to intense negative bombardment for 6+months from the very people who would then be needed to argue that it must be supported. And very few will argue positively for the deal, with most at best arguing it is all that can be managed.DecrepitJohnL said:
This is why any second referendum is doomed. The politicians who lost by fighting a purely negative campaign have perversely concluded they were not negative enough.Scott_P said:
It could be argued that "political decency" cost the Remain campaign when David Cameron refused to allow Boris to be tagged as "a Fucking Liar" every time BoZo appeared in public.Recidivist said:The Brexiters are the ones that are lacking in political decency.
Of course he did it for narrow party ends, but the result was the same...
So it is negative against negative. And with one of the negative sides more fired up and the other not supported by all who supported it last time.0 -
Has this type of Aircraft just entered general use, or has it had several years of accident-free flying. Obviously (using the Poisson distribution) we can get two accidents randomly in a relatively short space of time - that is co-incidence. However a couple of other thoughts.ydoethur said:
I think it's five months, not two years.notme2 said:
Even poor safety and maintenance can’t be to blame for a two year old aircraft failing.ydoethur said:Grim news:
Ethiopian Airlines: 'No survivors' on crashed Boeing 737
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508
And not exactly encouraging on the safety of the 737 Max. Two crashes in a very short operational history (just two years).
This is starting to look distinctly strange, and disturbing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-10/ethiopian-airlines-flight-to-nairobi-crashes-after-takeoff
The fact that a certain type of plane crashes almost always means that there is an increased probability that a second one will crash. The question is: why? It could be a design defect, it could be that a couple of technicians on the ground are being taught incorrect procedures by the same instructor.0
