Categories
Options
Enemies within? – politicalbetting.com
Enemies within? – politicalbetting.com
Asylum seekers in Channel pic.twitter.com/vuUdNjw6vc
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I say again, Covid will destroy Johnson's premiership.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1315378563076575233
It is somewhat shameless, but certainly effective.
It helps he was so definite in opposing the end of lockdown in July.
2017...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election#/media/File:Greater_Manchester_Mayoral_Election_2017_by_Wards.svg
He could very reasonably follow Johnson in a path from Mayor to Prime Minister.
1. There is a difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants.
2. Secondly Douglas Hoggs comments about Pat Finucane did not lead to his death nor was it of any consequence. Pat Finuance was long on Loyalist hit lists before anyone this side of the water knew who Douglas Hogg was nor cared for what he said. Even the dogs on the street knew he was a target long before he was killed.
That said, I think cyclefree does make a serious point even for those who are perfectly content with what the government is seeking to do in various areas, as follows:
The distinction between ends and means will be of little or no concern to such people, “how” one achieves the desired goal being irrelevant so long as the goal is reached.
For me, process is very important, even for the things I want to happen and while there will be occasions when you need to cut through the weeds, as it were, the times that is required is less frequent than supposed. A blustering, and blunt, path to the goal is often not necessary, and can have negative unforeseen consequences, and foreseen consequences at that when one considers precedent set. So when rule of law is concerned it pays to be cautious, as the near unfettered power of parliament is something that parliament should be careful with.
When that happens it is inevitable that politicians will get involved and fight battles too. Because politics is where political issues are meant to be resolved, not the court room.
If the courts get involved with political decision making, rather than enforcing the law, then the courts will inevitably get politicised. We will end up with parties seeking to get Judges that will enforce the law how they want it to be enforced, rather than enforcing the law as it is.
And that will be the death of an impartial "rule of law".
If you want to have a go at the law being politicised, maybe level some criticism at the likes of Jolyon Maugham QC and others that are continually trying to refight issues on Brexit and elsewhere through the courts, since they lost in the ballot box. When that continues to happen it is absolutely inevitable that politicians will get involved, because sort out political disputes is what politicians are elected to do.
Yes, the pandora's box Johnson and Patel are opening for short term political gain, could have long term implications, and you have explained what those implications could be.
I recall a few days after Cox's execution, Nigel Farage braved the crowds and claimed a revolution had been won (Brexit) and not a drop of blood had been spilt. I fear Johnson and his friends are blind to the cans of worms they open.
He seems to have no strong views, but is big on good intentions.
If more say/consulting is given to the regions he's going to find himself under pressure anyway.
Point 2 - this is not what the Stevens Inquiry found (https://twitter.com/hannahquirk1/status/1315071232623161346?s=21). In any case, it is irrelevant: a Minister should not be saying anything which might encourage another to commit violence or lead them to believe that they are doing what the government wants, even if it cannot say so openly.
Not remotely enough, but he does have a fair amount of local power on many important areas.
Good night everyone.
But he needs powers devolved.
His area has a similar population to Wales with a much larger economy, he needs the powers that are appropriate to such a position.
Know which one I'd prefer.
Why are people being attacked for doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist?
Why are Ministers putting people at real risk of attack when it is their duty to maintain law and order not foment it?
It would be good to hear rather more from the opposition on both parliamentary challenge to the executive, and basic respect for the rule of law.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/11/pessimism-casts-dark-cloud-over-uk-as-fear-of-new-coronavirus-lockdown-grows
The Covid / Brexit situations must be very bad if they have to descend to this level to distract their core voters.
https://twitter.com/conservatives/status/1315387526203441153?s=21
I think he'll do better than you think - that may of course be a low bar.
Whatever you think of him, this is a tough time to be PM, and to have been hit by illness in the midst of it makes it doubly tough.
But politicians get attacked for "doing their job under and in compliance with the laws which exist" all the freaking time by people who dislike them. Does Starmer place nicely nicely with Boris?
If lawyers want to step into the realm of politics then being attacked goes with the territory.
'Ministerial words have resulted in attacks on lawyers before: see the Stevens Inquiry’s findings about Home Office Minister Douglas Hogg’s accusations about NI lawyer, Patrick Finucane, murdered by Loyalists shortly afterwards in February 1989.'
I'm telling you Douglas Hogg's words did not lead to the attack on Pat Finuance, which is entirely explicit in your words above.
Lets get some facts. I knew exactly who Pat Finucane was well before 1989 and I knew he was a target. People from loyalist areas of Belfast, who had no involvement with the paramilitaries, knew who he was and knew he was a target. The police knew he was a target. He knew he was a target because he knew loyalist groups had been scouting & targeting him. He has been told he was a target. Loyalist groups were not behind the door is saying they wanted to kill him.
If your point was that Douglas Hogg's comments could be seen as encouragement and were irresponsible, fine, but it wasn't. Your phraseology was that Hogg's comments LED to the attack on Pat Finucane. That is utter bullshit. Anyone with a rudimental understanding of how things worked, the timelines, and Finucanes profile and history knows that.
And no point did the above comments from Steven's say Hogg's comments led to the attack.
However, having "No strong views" can often be a strength, not a weakness. See John Major as an example. Arguably Cameron and Wilson too.
Having good intentions is, I would argue, always a positive, whatever the situation.
Every time that someone attacks Boris is that calling for violence against him? If someone attacks Starmer is that calling for violence?
Keep a sense of proportion. People attack their political opponents.
If someone is using the law for poltical purposes then that is politics. And even worse it risks bringing the whole legal system into the political sphere with parties seeking to get partisan control over the legal profession and judiciary and Supreme Court as we see in the USA.
By the way, belated thanks to TSE for the clever last thread. I'd quite forgotten that Margaret Beckett (who I like) was 3rd favourite as next PM just 12 months ago.
But if it was such common knowledge that lawyers such as Finucane were potential targets for murder, such comments were grossly irresponsible.
I have wondered all year about the potential for that relationship to be the other way around - the potential for the (Democratic Party) energy going into the state house elections for control over redistricting to impact the Federal election outcomes across the board.
If more energy is going into getting people out to vote for these state house elections, particularly on the Democratic side, that presumably will translate up ticket too.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/republicans-risk-losing-texas-florida-arizona-state-houses-n1242842
Flag Quote · Off Topic Like
If the orange graph was a flat line you'd be right. It isn't.
Did that stop leftwingers from attacking Thatcher when they spoke?
The denigration of "do-gooders" is notable - since when was it a crime to try to do good? And if the government thinks doing good is not worthwhile, why on earth have they allowed Marcus Rashford to receive an honour?
To be honest, were it the case that the LOTO had been useless, it wouldn't matter. The fact that the PM has been worse than useless has been an extremely worrying matter of life and death.
Michael Foot wittering on about the General Belgrano was not an invitation for the IRA to plant an incendiary device in the Grand Hotel, Brighton.
In the case of an immigration decision I believe the judge is effectively the jury too.
Maybe a system of having lay person input would benefit the immigration system. There's definitely a sense it is run by lawyers, for lawyers.
When was that never a positive?
The IRA did what they wanted, so too did the loyalists.
What Hoggs said wasn't the trigger any more than any attacks on Thatcher were the trigger. Those who resort to violence are responsible for what they do.
The last time I checked, the legal establishment didn't have some special law that made it illegal to criticize them - and thank God for that!
Free speech is as important as any other principle. If you don't want to be criticised then don't give a reason to be criticised. Or stand up for yourself and justify yourself - aren't lawyers like politicians meant to be good at that.
But to say that lawyers are fair game to try to abuse the legal system to get what they want, but shouldn't be criticised when they do? Give me a break.
Lockdowns have been used to control the coronavirus around the world. Now a WHO official has questioned the success of them."
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/coronavirus-who-backflips-on-virus-stance-by-condemning-lockdowns/news-story/f2188f2aebff1b7b291b297731c3da74
Successful organisations focus on process, not outcomes.
Sadly, as a campaigning line it leaves much to be desired.
His wife is taking it really hard.
I guess the exception would be the Chinese model, where you lock everything down and try to effectively eliminate the virus, then open up again.
Students don’t get sick and die from this but people are scared they’ll spread it up the age curve. How? Well presumably by a) mixing with the locals, and b) going home. So institute a 21 and over rule in all non student bars / pubs in the university towns. And have something approaching more normal activity on campuses, to stem the tide of students who are already returning home.
Hammering the parts of local economies that have little to no interaction with students makes no sense at all. And worse, they tricked students into showing up to virtual courses as a backdoor bail out of the universities, and they are now heading home disillusioned, seeding infection in the whole country. What a cluster.
Others can comment more on why we’re still doing such a poor job of stopping hospital spread.
My only puzzlement in all this must be how your typical "I don't like the darkies" Tory voter feels about Patel. She says all the right things, has the right levels of cruelty to non-whites, but appears to not be British herself. Must be confusing for them.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-to-extend-health-campaign-as-snp-s-facts-slogan-leads-to-covid-confusion-lgg8qczdt
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1315527618490519555?s=20
I get the feeling though, that she doesn't like being challenged.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1315534464605458437
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1315045816621510661
With respect to Liverpool negotiating over restaurants etc staying open - there can't be local opt-outs from a national plan. Either the national plan gets given more steps (I know know, how about 5 tiers...) or the tiers are changed nationally.
And before we have the usual people on here trying to say its all completely easy to understand, Ferrari has had a former Chief Constable on who says he hasn't got a clue and its completely unenforceable.