politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump decides that he doesn’t need special preparation for the
Options
Comments
-
You are clearly an intelligent, decent bloke.RobD said:
I don't get this all or nothing attitude. Nothing stopping them meeting one half of their family on one day, and another half on another.Foxy said:
Yes, Christmas and Birthdays etc they need family.Cyclefree said:As some of you will know, my nephew died earlier this year during the lockdown, by his own hand. His parents were unable to help him because of the restrictions.
As a family we have decided that they will not be left alone to bear their grief, especially at Xmas.
Just saving any marshals or curtain twitchers the bother of having to denounce us. Mind you, round here the police are as rare as wildebeest.
Lots of depressed patients today resigned and fed up by the news of increasing cases and tightening restrictions despite the beautiful autumn weather here. Its going to be a long lonely winter for a lot of people.
At what stage are you going to stop defending the ludicrous authoritarian policies of the incompetent idiots who purport to govern us?0 -
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.0 -
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.0 -
The Human Party?Northern_Al said:
You could start your own political party, but I think you'd need a catchier name.Anabobazina said:I think we Six Ells are massively underserved by today’s political class.
Lean Left / Loosely Libertarian / Largely Liberal
Are we really that rare?
Regardless of the name, I doubt I’d get many followers!0 -
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.0 -
That's what President Trump needs to see: a narrowing gap. Let's see if the other pollsters pick it up.HYUFD said:0 -
Have we done this? More US Police dreadfulness.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/08/linden-cameron-police-shooting-boy-autism-utah0 -
We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’0
-
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?2 -
Interesting post from Reddit re. Pennsylvania
At this point in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.7%
Donald Trump: 43.3%
Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.8%
Donald Trump: 48.6%
Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).1 -
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.williamglenn said:
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.0 -
Of all the things one could criticise the clown for, losing his hair is not one of them.nichomar said:We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’
0 -
A 2% lead (assuming uniform swing) keeps Trump in the White House. If it's 2.5%, then it's 50/50. Any more than 3%, then Biden is much more likely to be President.MarqueeMark said:
Is that a result that delivers the EC?Peter_the_Punter said:
Thanks Hyufd. That's Trump's best result on a day of many polls.HYUFD said:
Of course, there are crazy scenarios where Trump increases his share in Florida (quite likely I'd have thought), Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but loses ground in Texas and Arizona.
Under that scenario, it's possible that Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College.
(Not a forecast, mind. It's just a possible, and not a very likely one at that.)0 -
The “rule of law” covers the general principles of western liberal democracy. Such as that laws should be clear and accessible, they should not be backdated, that one should have the right to a defence and to know the evidence against them, etc etc. It also includes the principle that international law is complied with as we discussed earlier.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.1 -
Well said.Philip_Thompson said:
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
This poster’s tendency to act as some sort of site policeman is nauseating.
Carry on Philip.4 -
Not a criticism just an observation and a light hearted diversion.Anabobazina said:
Of all the things one could criticise the clown for, losing his hair is not one of them.nichomar said:We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’
1 -
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?Philip_Thompson said:
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.williamglenn said:
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.0 -
Philip can say whatever he wants, troll free Philip0
-
True.Nigelb said:Covid-19 vaccine trial participant had serious neurological symptoms, but could be discharged today, AstraZeneca CEO says
https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/09/astrazeneca-covid19-vaccine-trial-hold-patient-report/
Not a placebo subject.
But one serious adverse reaction - which resulted in temporary hospitalisation - out of 30,000 participants is probably about par for the course.1 -
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.williamglenn said:
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?Philip_Thompson said:
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.williamglenn said:
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.0 -
"I can understand opinions."Philip_Thompson said:
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
0 -
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.0 -
That’s interesting. I’ve been keeping an eye on shares rather than leads, as, I believe has @rcs1000 - who argues that Trumpton probably mops up most undecideds.Gallowgate said:Interesting post from Reddit re. Pennsylvania
At this point in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.7%
Donald Trump: 43.3%
Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.8%
Donald Trump: 48.6%
Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
An interesting betting strategy (EC votes) could be to cover those states where Biden has 50%+.0 -
Ohhhhhh a new graphic....
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12626249/animated-graphic-coronavirus-cases-rising-england/0 -
No.IshmaelZ said:
"I can understand opinions."Philip_Thompson said:
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
A number of people disagree with me, a number of people agree. That's called having a difference of opinion and is entirely reasonable.0 -
Here's another one:Peter_the_Punter said:
Thanks Hyufd. That's Trump's best result on a day of many polls.HYUFD said:
Biden 55%
Trump 40%
Biden +151 -
You make my point for me, the point made in my article.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Parliamentary sovereignty - with no restraints - says that Parliament could do precisely that: pass a law authorising, for instance, the killing of everyone with a P in their name. And if that was in the manifesto and had been voted for, fine.
Whereas most people believe - and WW2 brought this into sharp relief - that there need to be restraints even on what a democratically elected government can do, hence the ECHR, for instance, and other international laws and conventions etc, to avoid what many (often Tories) called the tyranny of the majority.
Those who believe in pure unrestrained Parliamentary sovereignty are, IMO, the descendants of those who believed in the divine right of kings. Parliament seized power from the King but that does not mean that Parliament itself should be free to do whatever it wants. It too is subject to the law. “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”5 -
So you supported the way successive EU treaties were ratified by parliament and you would have opposed referendums on them?Philip_Thompson said:
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.williamglenn said:
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?Philip_Thompson said:
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.williamglenn said:
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.0 -
I think in general, regardless of a Left or Right, authoritarianism has gained against libertarianism in recent times. And I think that’s sad, and worrying. I’m instinctively nervous of governments, religions or other institutions telling people how to live their lives.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.2 -
That's pretty much my default assumption: Trump will continue to eat into the share of undecideds, but unless Biden's share actually starts to go backward, then it's very hard for Trump.Gallowgate said:Interesting post from Reddit re. Pennsylvania
At this point in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.7%
Donald Trump: 43.3%
Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.8%
Donald Trump: 48.6%
Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).1 -
No pouring it in your surgery wound .........Gallowgate said:I’ve just had some broth so I should be right as rain asap.
0 -
That only holds true if the polls have an accurate handle on turnout, otherwise what looks like over 50% could be less than that.rcs1000 said:
That's pretty much my default assumption: Trump will continue to eat into the share of undecideds, but unless Biden's share actually starts to go backward, then it's very hard for Trump.Gallowgate said:Interesting post from Reddit re. Pennsylvania
At this point in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.7%
Donald Trump: 43.3%
Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.8%
Donald Trump: 48.6%
Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).0 -
No - it really isn’t. Even a cursory knowledge of our history should tell you that.Philip_Thompson said:
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.williamglenn said:
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?Philip_Thompson said:
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.williamglenn said:
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.1 -
Is it narrowing? The same pollster last ten weekly polls were 10 2 2 6 3 7 4 1 4 2rcs1000 said:
That's what President Trump needs to see: a narrowing gap. Let's see if the other pollsters pick it up.HYUFD said:
The polling average has been remarkably static in that time, so not sure what they're doing - and how they jumped from 10 to 2 in a week when the polling average was virtually unchanged suggests they're a bit wonky, a bit unlucky, or changed their methodology.1 -
I don't think "the Left" has. There was an unusual period where the neo-Trots took over the Labour party, but the majority of the Left are Social Democrats, Fabians type soft Socialists, etc. Twitter has never been representative.Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Starmer is not authoritarian, except perhaps intolerant of anti semites in the party etc, and the rest of the front bench are pretty similar too.
You are tilting at straw men.2 -
Yes and no. Yes Parliament ratifying treaties was within its remit, though I opposed Lisbon being ratified as it was since the Labour manifesto had said there would be a referendum.williamglenn said:
So you supported the way successive EU treaties were ratified by parliament and you would have opposed referendums on them?Philip_Thompson said:
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.williamglenn said:
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?Philip_Thompson said:
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.williamglenn said:
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
No I wouldn't have opposed a referendum, had Parliament voted for a referendum it would be reasonable to have one.0 -
No unpopular opinions allowed then?IshmaelZ said:
"I can understand opinions."Philip_Thompson said:
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?1 -
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested1 -
Obviously.williamglenn said:
That only holds true if the polls have an accurate handle on turnout, otherwise what looks like over 50% could be less than that.rcs1000 said:
That's pretty much my default assumption: Trump will continue to eat into the share of undecideds, but unless Biden's share actually starts to go backward, then it's very hard for Trump.Gallowgate said:Interesting post from Reddit re. Pennsylvania
At this point in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.7%
Donald Trump: 43.3%
Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.8%
Donald Trump: 48.6%
Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
However, given the major pollsters have gotten it broadly right in the past, one needs to have a compelling rationale for why they should get it very wrong this time.0 -
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
0 -
Politicians and technology.....rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested0 -
Might have an impact for here I posted a link yesterday about it, not sure if you saw itrcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200824/13595845171/intermediary-liability-responsibilities-post-brexit-graham-smith.shtml
just in case0 -
This will be some sort of "shy agreers" claim.Philip_Thompson said:
No.IshmaelZ said:
"I can understand opinions."Philip_Thompson said:
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
A number of people disagree with me, a number of people agree. That's called having a difference of opinion and is entirely reasonable.0 -
Exasperation is a reaction to extreme silliness, not to unpopularity.RobD said:
No unpopular opinions allowed then?IshmaelZ said:
"I can understand opinions."Philip_Thompson said:
Because on this site we share our opinions.IshmaelZ said:
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.Philip_Thompson said:
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.Stark_Dawning said:
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.Philip_Thompson said:
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.Stark_Dawning said:
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?0 -
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested0 -
Hardly the media companies more or less wrote the eu copyright directive. This is merely our politicians failing to understand how the internet worksBeibheirli_C said:
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested0 -
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested0 -
Probably as to the EUrcs1000 said:
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals0 -
As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.3 -
It is indeed.Pagan2 said:
Probably as to the EUrcs1000 said:
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals0 -
OK, who had "ERG say they won't vote for BoZo's law breaking" on their Bingo card?0
-
If that does happen I imagine we'll hear far less of the argument about the unfairness of the US Constitution and the short-sightedness of the founding fathers.Peter_the_Punter said:
If Texas flips, it's a landslide. Otherwise it's a normal win or a damn close thing.kinabalu said:
Yes - decisive win would be a more accurate description. I'll be calling it a landslide though if I possibly can. ☺Peter_the_Punter said:
That's about my take, though maybe less of the 'landslide'. It should be comfortable enough but Florida is different and will probably stay red.kinabalu said:
"Trump out in Dem landslide but Florida stubbornly stays red".Drutt said:Hello again everyone. Been away a while. New phone.
I very much doubt Trump is skipping preparation.
What is everyone's headline prediction (12 words or fewer) for US elections? Broadly mine is 'Biden to squeak it because Great Lake states turn blue'.
I don't honestly think Texas will flip, but if it does the ECV distortion switches too. Instead of the ECV system favoring the GOP, it will then favor the Democrats. Cue bitter complaints about the system's unfairness!0 -
-
Take the link with a small dash of salt it is techdirt and while they tend to be accurate with detail like all sites they have a slantrcs1000 said:
It is indeed.Pagan2 said:
Probably as to the EUrcs1000 said:
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?rcs1000 said:
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.Pagan2 said:
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.rcs1000 said:
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?Andy_JS said:Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals0 -
The Human League sounds better and would get my vote.Anabobazina said:
The Human Party?Northern_Al said:
You could start your own political party, but I think you'd need a catchier name.Anabobazina said:I think we Six Ells are massively underserved by today’s political class.
Lean Left / Loosely Libertarian / Largely Liberal
Are we really that rare?
Regardless of the name, I doubt I’d get many followers!0 -
It's fucking mental.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.0 -
Good sound sacharine lyrics....kinabalu said:
The Human League sounds better and would get my vote.Anabobazina said:
The Human Party?Northern_Al said:
You could start your own political party, but I think you'd need a catchier name.Anabobazina said:I think we Six Ells are massively underserved by today’s political class.
Lean Left / Loosely Libertarian / Largely Liberal
Are we really that rare?
Regardless of the name, I doubt I’d get many followers!1 -
A good rule for any Conservative is "up to a point, yes".Cyclefree said:
You make my point for me, the point made in my article.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.Cyclefree said:
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.Philip_Thompson said:
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?Nigelb said:
Not even close.Philip_Thompson said:
Is this reasonable?Cyclefree said:I’ve been busy. Has @Philip_Thompson learnt what the rule of law means yet?
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601637106298883
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1303601638549184513
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
(Or more cheekily you can read this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/ - which makes a similar point about Parliament, even as a law-maker, being constrained by and subject to, the rule of law.)
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Parliamentary sovereignty - with no restraints - says that Parliament could do precisely that: pass a law authorising, for instance, the killing of everyone with a P in their name. And if that was in the manifesto and had been voted for, fine.
Whereas most people believe - and WW2 brought this into sharp relief - that there need to be restraints even on what a democratically elected government can do, hence the ECHR, for instance, and other international laws and conventions etc, to avoid what many (often Tories) called the tyranny of the majority.
Those who believe in pure unrestrained Parliamentary sovereignty are, IMO, the descendants of those who believed in the divine right of kings. Parliament seized power from the King but that does not mean that Parliament itself should be free to do whatever it wants. It too is subject to the law. “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”1 -
Broth?Gallowgate said:I’ve just had some broth so I should be right as rain asap.
Did you go back to the 1730s to get it?0 -
We should really listen to the sound of the crowd before making a decision like that.kinabalu said:
The Human League sounds better and would get my vote.Anabobazina said:
The Human Party?Northern_Al said:
You could start your own political party, but I think you'd need a catchier name.Anabobazina said:I think we Six Ells are massively underserved by today’s political class.
Lean Left / Loosely Libertarian / Largely Liberal
Are we really that rare?
Regardless of the name, I doubt I’d get many followers!1 -
@HYUFD delivered some to me.Casino_Royale said:
Broth?Gallowgate said:I’ve just had some broth so I should be right as rain asap.
Did you go back to the 1730s to get it?4 -
I’d like to know if @Philip_Thompson values our membership or proposed membership of any of these organisations?rcs1000 said:As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.0 -
-
Thats all they really want out of this. Rows with the EU, the Lords, Judges to keep attention away from their incompetence, dishonesty and kleptocracy. Sadly it will work.williamglenn said:0 -
This has been setup to do create another people vs Government narrative.
They're now going to bring the Lords and the Judges into the debate.1 -
0
-
Yes I do - and I don't believe this law counts out those, that's an overly literal interpretation.Gallowgate said:
I’d like to know if @Philip_Thompson values our membership or proposed membership of any of these organisations?rcs1000 said:As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.0 -
You say this like it's a bad thing.CorrectHorseBattery said:This has been setup to do create another people vs Government narrative.
They're now going to bring the Lords and the Judges into the debate.1 -
The Lords need one spokesman to control the narrative i.e. “the people voted for this Brexit deal to get Brexit done. Get on with it”.noneoftheabove said:
Thats all they really want out of this. Rows with the EU, the Lords, Judges to keep attention away from their incompetence, dishonesty and kleptocracy. Sadly it will work.williamglenn said:0 -
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."Casino_Royale said:This is fucking mad!
2 -
A basic rule of my life: I read everything before I sign it. If I sign something, I honour it. If I don't like it, I don't sign and I live with the consequences.
If I have no choice but still don't like it (T&Cs for some essential services) then I click "yes" but give feedback, campaign to change it or look for medium-long term alternatives but I still honour it.
Because I respect the bloody law.0 -
-
-
Brexit in a nutshell.Casino_Royale said:1 -
I prefer Governments that don't break the law Sean, yesLadyG said:
You say this like it's a bad thing.CorrectHorseBattery said:This has been setup to do create another people vs Government narrative.
They're now going to bring the Lords and the Judges into the debate.1 -
Very good.williamglenn said:
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."Casino_Royale said:This is fucking mad!
Sometimes you do a funny.3 -
This analogy just gets better and better with age.rcs1000 said:As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/7223914535997235201 -
@Scott_xP that video is damning.0
-
Total bollocks as the conservative party doesnt speak for the country, its merely accidentally our government. No more did labour speak for all of us when blair decided that invading iraq was a brilliant ideaScott_xP said:0 -
And "Notwithstanding any unusual local languages, all EU citizens must address loyal British subjects, wherever they are, in Her Majesty the Queens English."williamglenn said:
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."Casino_Royale said:This is fucking mad!
0 -
Irish PM calling for negotiations.
Funny that!0 -
That is a powerful ad, think it will work with some Trump supporters who have been personally hit with covid.Scott_xP said:0 -
Respect.Casino_Royale said:A basic rule of my life: I read everything before I sign it. If I sign something, I honour it. If I don't like it, I don't sign and I live with the consequences.
If I have no choice but still don't like it (T&Cs for some essential services) then I click "yes" but give feedback, campaign to change it or look for medium-long term alternatives but I still honour it.
Because I respect the bloody law.
A Tory with principles.2 -
No. Don't put me off.TheScreamingEagles said:
Brexit in a nutshell.Casino_Royale said:
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.2 -
Evening all
Midweek means a veritable onslaught of US polling. The State polling I'll leave to others - the three national polls are hugely variable. Rasmussen has Biden up 48-46 so a carbon copy of 2016 but with no crosstabs it's impossible to draw any conclusions.
CNBC/Change Research has published a large number of State polls and a national poll with Biden ahead 49-43. The battleground polls have Biden ahead everywhere and I'm struck by the very small number of Undecided voters.
My favourite poll every week is the Economist/YouGov. Exactly four years ago, the equivalent poll had Clinton ahead 46-44. Tonight, Biden leads 52-43 so that's a 4.5% swing to the Democrats and very much in line with what I'm seeing in many other polls.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8nwf5tw7g2/econTabReport.pdf
Among men, Trump is up by one but Biden leads by fourteen among women. Among White voters Trump leads 51-42 but among Hispanics he trails 52-30. The latter is actually an improvement for Trump on 2016 but that's not because Hispanic voters are going to Trump, they just aren't committing to Biden.
Among White voters the swing to Biden is 6%.
Independents break 40-39 for Biden but with 11% undecided, there's still something to play for.
The sample breakdown is 38.7% Democrat, 34.7% Independent and 26.5% Republican which looks a little Republican-lite to me.1 -
Now you're talking! This is what Cameron should have done instead of that renegotiation business.noneoftheabove said:
And "Notwithstanding any unusual local languages, all EU citizens must address loyal British subjects, wherever they are, in Her Majesty the Queens English."williamglenn said:
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."Casino_Royale said:This is fucking mad!
1 -
See my tweet from 2016 posted below, this is the inevitable consequence of the Vote Leave campaign strategy, the one you campaigned for and voted for.Casino_Royale said:
No. Don't put me off.TheScreamingEagles said:
Brexit in a nutshell.Casino_Royale said:
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.
Next you'll be telling us that Remain didn't warn leaving the EU had the potential to tear apart the Union.3 -
@Casino_Royale with all due respect, you’re happy to criticise all “Remainers” based on the actions of a few bellends. In fact you do on a regular basis.
Now the government are acting very publicly like bellends so don’t be surprised if the whole of “your team” is criticised.0 -
Leghslation to stop checks between England and Wales ?!
It's not needed. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England (Subsequently the Union) since roughly the 13th century. Wales doesn't even have its own legal system, it's entirely legally English.0 -
Remember Wales has a full Parliament now and ability to set its own laws. The E+W legal system will almost definitely diverge over time...Pulpstar said:Leghslation to stop checks between England and Wales ?!
It's not needed. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England (Subsequently the Union) since roughly the 13th century. Wales doesn't even have its own legal system, it's entirely legally English.0 -
The problem is, the public's not in the same mood as last year. As I mentioned yesterday, It will only work for the Brexiteer ultras who are already locked in. Last year all these forces were just successfully cast as obstacles to a deal, for most of the rest of the public backing the Tories ; so they did so partly on the understanding that the Tories were the ones who would Brexit go away with the deal, as an issue.noneoftheabove said:
Thats all they really want out of this. Rows with the EU, the Lords, Judges to keep attention away from their incompetence, dishonesty and kleptocracy. Sadly it will work.williamglenn said:1 -
My behaviour is far from perfect.Gallowgate said:@Casino_Royale with all due respect, you’re happy to criticise all “Remainers” based on the actions of a few bellends. In fact you do on a regular basis.
Now the government are acting very publicly like bellends so don’t be surprised if the whole of “your team” is criticised.
But, you might want to find a better argument than "you started it".0 -
There was nothing inevitable about ending in this place, as May showed.TheScreamingEagles said:
See my tweet from 2016 posted below, this is the inevitable consequence of the Vote Leave campaign strategy, the one you campaigned for and voted for.Casino_Royale said:
No. Don't put me off.TheScreamingEagles said:
Brexit in a nutshell.Casino_Royale said:
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.
Next you'll be telling us that Remain didn't warn leaving the EU had the potential to tear apart the Union.
You just want to be right and to be seen to be right.
So please piss off - there's a good chap.-1 -
Johnson capitulation incoming then, just as last timePhilip_Thompson said:Irish PM calling for negotiations.
Funny that!1
This discussion has been closed.