"It is understood there is no certainty that Ms Gray will complete her work tonight, with redrafting, wrangling with lawyers and police, and HR issues being blamed for the hold-ups."
Hmm. That could mean anything, particularly 'redrafting'.
What is the difference between the government releasing a redacted report and the government sending a room full of lawyers to intimidate Gray into redrafting certain sections before release?
Certainly looks a a bit fishy to me. First it was apparently just clearing security issues with the met today, and now we're back to "lawyers" and "HR".
It was a simple legal fact that the referendum didn't bind even the 2015 parliament, never mind successive parliaments.
Technically correct, but emotionally and politically wrong.
And that is why it may be considered both inadvisable and wrong, but not Treason. Surely treason requires a little more, in being technically and legally wrong too.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
Thank fuck the vote WAS respected. Eventually
I see you are not capable of a sane discussion then? See conversation/disagreement between myself and @Applicant on the topic. That is how it is done. As per your language and style - What a twat you are.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
An interesting factoid: By some estimates, Jews constituted 10% of the Roman Empire by population, in the First Century AD
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
It was a simple legal fact that the referendum didn't bind even the 2015 parliament, never mind successive parliaments.
Technically correct, but emotionally and politically wrong.
And that is why it may be considered both inadvisable and wrong, but not Treason. Surely treason requires a little more, in being technically and legally wrong too.
Yeah, "treason" is far too strong. "Anti-democratic" is quite strong enough.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
A rerun referendum in the same parliament? Sure, I take your point. But we had a General Election and elected a new parliament with nothing done barring Article 50. And the rerun referendum was proposed by MPs elected in 2017. That 2017 parliament was not bound by anything done by the previous one and the government lost its majority because people voted not to carry on with the agenda pursued by the 2015 parliament.
Democracy is that we elect a sovereign parliament. Thats it. Sovereign to pass laws, not to be beholden to the past. We don't live in Switzerland where everything is decided by direct democracy referenda, we have a parliamentary system.
This for me reinforces just how broken our constitution is and how out of touch our electoral system is. It was a simple legal fact that the referendum didn't bind even the 2015 parliament, never mind successive parliaments. The problem is that dipshit politicians said that it did and people who don't understand how our stupid system works believed them. Same as the people who think they elect a party or a prime minister. Thinking it doesn't make it correct, but does create problems of legitimacy.
Direct democracy is the way forward. Would force voters to educate themselves about political issues rather than just seeing it as a soap opera for ugly people where they have to vote contestants in or out every few years.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
I think that would have been the right course of action to have proposed at the start. And when a new deal was negotiated, the same questions would be put again... until a deal was struck that was acceptable to a majority.
I don't believe any such deal could ever have been made, and after about the third rejection there would have been a real risk a government would have been elected on a platform to give up the attempt and remain. Which is, of course, why no Leavers proposed such a thing. Of course a government might also have been elected on a specific Leave platform (as indeed happened for different reasons).
"It is understood there is no certainty that Ms Gray will complete her work tonight, with redrafting, wrangling with lawyers and police, and HR issues being blamed for the hold-ups."
Hmm. That could mean anything, particularly 'redrafting'.
What is the difference between the government releasing a redacted report and the government sending a room full of lawyers to intimidate Gray into redrafting certain sections before release?
Yup, looks fishy to me. First it was apparently clearing security issues today, now we're back to "lawyers" and "HR".
The key is opponents will likely be disappointed anyway, so Boris just needs a report which the weak bladders on the backbenches can use to justify no action. It may well be the report would give them that anyway.
A Western intelligence official says Russia has brought in many of the enablers it was lacking, including medical and logistics, to carry out a potential military operation against Ukraine.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
Parliamentary Remainers should have pushed for a second vote between the government's preferred form of Brexit with Irish backstop vs AN Other, whether it was EFTA or exit Single Market but stay in customs union. It would have respected the first referendum perfectly well, defused a national crisis and been in the national interest. It is near certain that their own form of Brexit would have triumphed in that vote.
But they chose instead to act like vandals and here we are, with Boris Johnson propelled into a position to do all that he has as arguably the only person who could credibly break that deadlock.
"It is understood there is no certainty that Ms Gray will complete her work tonight, with redrafting, wrangling with lawyers and police, and HR issues being blamed for the hold-ups."
Hmm. That could mean anything, particularly 'redrafting'.
What is the difference between the government releasing a redacted report and the government sending a room full of lawyers to intimidate Gray into redrafting certain sections before release?
Does sound like Gray is being nobbled.
BBC report Boris is coming to Wales tomorrow while mps return to their constituencies tonight
They went on to say discussions continue between Sue Gray and the Met over the report
We have lawyers on here so my question is, if the report names individuals and it is released into the public domain does that either compromise those named or the police investigation and could this delay the release further
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
Thank fuck the vote WAS respected. Eventually
I see you are not capable of a sane discussion then? See conversation/disagreement between myself and @Applicant on the topic. That is how it is done. As per your language and style - What a twat you are.
i readily confess that in my mellow later years this is one subject that can still make me very angry. But my anger is righteous and justified
Remainers who wanted to cancel democracy and have a “people’s vote” were not just lying, scheming hypocrites, they were playing with terrible fire. Like infants with gelignite. If the vote had been annulled who would ever have voted again, on the Leave side? Why bother? That’s 17 million people. Who’s to say you fuckers wouldn’t have called a 3rd vote if you’d also lost the 2nd?
And so on, and so forth.
As I said. Enough. You made a terrible moral choice. Feel free to blame it on David Cameron’s ineptitude in framing the referendum the way he did. He is certainly to blame, in part
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
At last. Biden gets a break.
A couple of thoughts (I'm assuming Breyer has been persuaded to step down):
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
I'm not sure it had because nobody knew what Leave actually meant. Remain just meant the status quo (not great, even as a Remainer I want changes) and Leave meant some completely unknown outcome. I mean even as a Remainer I can think of some unlikely circumstances where I would vote Leave if I knew the outcome.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
I'm sure there are things which are more futile than trying to ascribe personal political views to members of the Royal Family, but I can't immediately think of any.
If we ruled out futile political speculations on PB we’d have about 3 comments a day
My bet:
Queen: Leave The Late D of E: Leave Charles: Remain Andrew: Remoaner, wanted a 2nd vote Anne: Leave Edward: Remain Wills: Remain Kate: Leave Harry: Leave Megan: Not sure how Brexit benefits her, so probably Remain
Queen: definitely L D of E: probably L, but he'd want Greece and the UK tied together, so not a definite Charles: R Andrew: he'd want as much young 'totty' in the UK as possible, so R Anne: L Edward: genuinely no idea Wills: R Kate: R (because she knows that she has to support her husband, even when he's mistaken) Harry: Where's the party? Meghan: My friend Oprah said that Brexit was a terrible thing
Harry surely Leave: back then he was a lairy lad in the army. They are all Leave
Er, apart from 100% of the sample ex-HMF on PB that is (me, Dura and Carnyx IIRC - any more for any more?)
And HCav in particular generally are 50:50 Remain:Leave as of the sample I come into contact with. Much like the rest of the population.
But, with all due respect, you are all old (like me)
Younger military types are much Leavier. Especially the boozy laddish types like Harry (as was, RIP)
Harry is a boozy laddish HCav officer.
All the ex-servicemen I know (including a few under 30) were remainers. Sorry Leon, being a useful idiot for Putin doesn't exactly make you a patriot.
The useful idiots for Putin are those like the Germans who want to tie our economic future to Putin's gas, Nord stream II and those who wish to tie our economic and strategic future to Germany.
Britain leaving that was against Putin's interest.
Putin very much in favour of weakening the EU by having Britain leave.
That doesn't mean we can't cooperate with the EU now to deter Russian aggression, or that it's impossible for someone to reasonably decide to leave the EU for other reasons, but this game you have of twisting everything to be a reason to leave is infantile.
I see no evidence that a "strong EU" is against Putin's interests, or a weak EU against it.
The EU weakening democratic nations and tying them down with Byzantine bureaucracy and allowing his useful idiots in Germany to have a strong say over their future seems to be entirely in Putin's interests.
When the EU's powerhouse is Putin's most useful idiot, a weaker EU seems to be just what the doctor ordered in weakening Putin.
Put aside your own feelings about the EU, and look at Russia's strategy. It is openly hostile towards towards the EU. Whether or not you agree that such a strategy is in Russia's interests, that IS the Russian strategy. Russia's leadership believes it to be in their interests to weaken the EU.
Hence the Russian funding for both UKiP and the leave campaign, and Farage’s relationship with Russia Today
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
Maybe He directly intervened with the Nazis? Maybe he sent stomach bugs at crucial times to irritate Hitler and make him make silly mistakes.
If WW2 had happened in prehistoric times, rather than 75 years ago, I'm sure this is how it would have been reported.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
Parliamentary Remainers should have pushed for a second vote between the government's preferred form of Brexit with Irish backstop vs AN Other, whether it was EFTA or exit Single Market but stay in customs union. It would have respected the first referendum perfectly well, defused a national crisis and been in the national interest. It is near certain that their own form of Brexit would have triumphed in that vote.
But they chose instead to act like vandals and here we are, with Boris Johnson propelled into a position to do all that he has as arguably the only person who could credibly break that deadlock.
Yes. Exactly right. They would easily have won that vote, the Remainers, also making it much easier for the UK to rejoin completely, if we ever so decided
Their infantile, anti-democratic hypocrisy ensured the hardest Brexit of all. A bitter but splendid irony
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
An interesting factoid: By some estimates, Jews constituted 10% of the Roman Empire by population, in the First Century AD
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
Not, surely, a huge surprise?
Unless Democrats had been very confident of advancing in the Senate in November (something I don't actually rule out as the map isn't bad for them, but which is unlikely) this was always on the cards given Breyer is 83 years old. It would have been a huge gamble to risk it and, no matter how dedicated he is, he'd surely like a bit of a retirement.
The narrow position in the Senate shouldn't be a problem. Manchin and Sinema are awkward on substantive legislation, but it'd be very surprising if they voted against confirmation of a justice nominated by Biden unless he/she has some extremely big flaw. And Collins and Murkowski are both highly possible confirmation votes in a close one.
Manchin in particular couldn't really veto on ideological grounds even if the choice was a bit more liberal than he'd like - his whole point with confirming Kavanaugh was that he DIDN'T agree with him on a political level (or "judicial philosophy" level if you want to put a gloss on it) but Trump had the constitutional right to nominate and the sexual assault allegations were unproven so ultimately he had no grounds not to wave it through (and he gave Gorsuch the nod on the same basis, albeit he was fundamentally a pretty uncontroversial pick - maybe the least provocative thing Trump did in his time in office). All Democrats, Manchin and Sinema included, voted against Coney Barrett as it directly contradicted the precedent set for Garland in 2016.
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
That won't change the balance though, will it? He needs some of the republicans appointed to keel over before the SC fatally undermines support for their rather daft constitution.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
Mainstream Christian belief is the age of miracles is over, direct intervention now a no no.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
I'm not sure it had because nobody knew what Leave actually meant. Remain just meant the status quo (not great, even as a Remainer I want changes) and Leave meant some completely unknown outcome. I mean even as a Remainer I can think of some unlikely circumstances where I would vote Leave if I knew the outcome.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
Oh, absolutely. The problem was that negotiating a clear future status before the vote didn't really suit either side.
I'd hope that if there is to be a second Scottish independence referendum at some point, the lessons are learned and a proper prospectus is put to the voters. But I think it's a forlorn hope.
A Western intelligence official says Russia has brought in many of the enablers it was lacking, including medical and logistics, to carry out a potential military operation against Ukraine.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
An interesting factoid: By some estimates, Jews constituted 10% of the Roman Empire by population, in the First Century AD
Direct democracy is the way forward. Would force voters to educate themselves about political issues rather than just seeing it as a soap opera for ugly people where they have to vote contestants in or out every few years.
Exactly. I met Swiss voters who decided not to engage with the votes every 3 months and said they were content to leave the decision to others (so turnout was typically only 50% or so), and I met lots who took it seriously and would set aside an evening to discuss the pros and cons with the family. I never met anyone who treated it as a game, and they would mostly buy into the outcomes even if they voted the other way - "I see they've started work on our new bridge" rather than "I see they're building a bridge".
My favourite story in that context is an elderly colleague who used to pant as he walked up the stairs to our second floor office.
"Why don't you take the lift?" "I voted against nuclear power, which means less power available, and I need to accept the consequences of my actions."
That connection between political action and personal life is largely broken in representative democracy - we always say that "They" have decided something, giving us an implied freedom to try to get around it or ignore it.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
Mainstream Christian belief is the age of miracles is over, direct intervention now a no no.
Well that sucks. We could use a miracle now and then.
"It is understood there is no certainty that Ms Gray will complete her work tonight, with redrafting, wrangling with lawyers and police, and HR issues being blamed for the hold-ups."
Hmm. That could mean anything, particularly 'redrafting'.
What is the difference between the government releasing a redacted report and the government sending a room full of lawyers to intimidate Gray into redrafting certain sections before release?
Certainly looks a a bit fishy to me. First it was apparently just clearing security issues with the met today, and now we're back to "lawyers" and "HR".
In my experience, "confidentiality of HR processes" is always used as a weapon to protect senior people from serious scrutiny of their misdoings.
Wow! It appears that Ukraine requested 100,000 helmets and armored vests from Germany to equip its volunteers in the event of Russia’s offensive. Berlin agreed to provide just 5,000 helmets.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, didn't it take a few hundred years for the Jews to be freed from Egypt, during which time they presumably suffered a great extent.
Maybe the Allies managed to save those Jews who survived the Holocaust simply a bit earlier than the Supreme Being, somewhat pre-empting his work. Wonder what he thinks of having his role usurped in this way?
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
That won't change the balance though, will it? He needs some of the republicans appointed to keel over before the SC fatally undermines support for their rather daft constitution.
Securing a long term liberal appointment is no minor thing though. That that is so is ridiculous, but that's the system I guess.
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
At last. Biden gets a break.
A couple of thoughts (I'm assuming Breyer has been persuaded to step down):
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
Good point. The Senate rules seem to say that if there is no VP then the Chair must be a Senator... but there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the President pro tempore naming a Republican as acting Chair...
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
Mainstream Christian belief is the age of miracles is over, direct intervention now a no no.
Well that sucks. We could use a miracle now and then.
I am not religious but the way we were able to develop successful vaccines for Covid bordered on the miraculous.
One of the MPs listed as "icy" on Meeks' spreadsheet replied to a friend today about the PM. Given it was a letter that could easily end up in the public domain, he was pretty spicy with his language. And yet I sit here and watch the talking heads on telly say there's little chance of Boris losing a VONC even if one is called.
Once this report is out, unless there's been an extraordinary whitewash, he is finished. The only thing that might prevent that is a Russian incursion in Ukraine in the meantime but I doubt that will come soon enough for Bojo.
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
That won't change the balance though, will it? He needs some of the republicans appointed to keel over before the SC fatally undermines support for their rather daft constitution.
Securing a long term liberal appointment is no minor thing though. That that is so is ridiculous, but that's the system I guess.
What is ridiculous is that the US has a court that (a) has so much power and so little accountability and (b) whose members are so plainly partisan and political in their judgments.
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
Mainstream Christian belief is the age of miracles is over, direct intervention now a no no.
Well that sucks. We could use a miracle now and then.
I am not religious but the way we were able to develop successful vaccines for Covid bordered on the miraculous.
It was certainly fortuitous but had reasonable explanation. I'm talking full on inexplicble eucatastrophe, we deserve that.
@GavinBarwell I've been a Conservative councillor, MP and Minister, the Party's Director of Campaigning and Chief of Staff to a Conservative Prime Minister. But it turns out that because I believe Prime Ministers should obey the laws they impose on the rest of us, I'm a leftie
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, didn't it take a few hundred years for the Jews to be freed from Egypt, during which time they presumably suffered a great extent.
Maybe the Allies managed to save those Jews who survived the Holocaust simply a bit earlier than the Supreme Being, somewhat pre-empting his work. Wonder what he thinks of having his role usurped in this way?
There is a simpler explanation, if you trouble yourselves to consider it.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
Parliamentary Remainers should have pushed for a second vote between the government's preferred form of Brexit with Irish backstop vs AN Other, whether it was EFTA or exit Single Market but stay in customs union. It would have respected the first referendum perfectly well, defused a national crisis and been in the national interest. It is near certain that their own form of Brexit would have triumphed in that vote.
But they chose instead to act like vandals and here we are, with Boris Johnson propelled into a position to do all that he has as arguably the only person who could credibly break that deadlock.
My solution was to have a vote on accepting Mays deal vs negotiate for another year.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
I'm not sure it had because nobody knew what Leave actually meant. Remain just meant the status quo (not great, even as a Remainer I want changes) and Leave meant some completely unknown outcome. I mean even as a Remainer I can think of some unlikely circumstances where I would vote Leave if I knew the outcome.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
Oh, absolutely. The problem was that negotiating a clear future status before the vote didn't really suit either side.
I'd hope that if there is to be a second Scottish independence referendum at some point, the lessons are learned and a proper prospectus is put to the voters. But I think it's a forlorn hope.
it’s not a forlorn hope. The UK government is in charge of any future Scottish referendum, and we DO need to learn the lessons of the Brexit vote.
I am a Leaver (my vote nearly went the other way, FWIW) but I readily concede the way Cameron conducted it was appallingly irresponsible, classic insouciant Etonian arrogance blowing up in his face
Before any vote we should have had a cross party, bipartisan Farage-meets-Blair commission setting out exactly what Remain and Leave meant.
Alternatively or maybe in addition, it should have been a two stage referendum. If Remain won, we stayed. If Leave won, we should then have had a 2nd vote (before we triggered Article 50) where we could all decide exactly what kind of Leave we wanted.
Almost certainly soft Leave would have triumphed, EEA or the like. The people’s will would have been respected and all these bitter and terrible divisions would have been largely avoided
We CAN learn that lesson for indyref2, if and when it happens (sometime in the 2030s is my guess). If you have referenda, you need to do them properly. Instead, we just threw a grenade at our constitution, and prayed that it would all turn out OK. Tut
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
That won't change the balance though, will it? He needs some of the republicans appointed to keel over before the SC fatally undermines support for their rather daft constitution.
Securing a long term liberal appointment is no minor thing though. That that is so is ridiculous, but that's the system I guess.
What is ridiculous is that the US has a court that (a) has so much power and so little accountability and (b) whose members are so plainly partisan and political in their judgments.
On (b), the main problem - and showing why rushes to gain short-term advantage in the US political system always usually backfire - stems from Harry Reid in 2013 getting rid of the filibuster for federal judges below the SC level in order to get Obama's nominees through. Worked short-term until McConnell then announced he was abolishing it for SC judges as well off the back of Reid's move. Which then allowed for Trump to move through with the 3 SC justices he did.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Arguably he did longer term as the Holocaust led to the recreation of the state of Israel to provide a home of security for Jews again.
Moses of course was led by God out of Egypt to Israel in the first place.
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
At last. Biden gets a break.
A couple of thoughts (I'm assuming Breyer has been persuaded to step down):
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
On 1, was there ever a point since the 2020 election, that Democrats were highly confident of holding the Senate in 2022? I mean the map isn't bad, but one net loss and they lose it, and it's a midterm. There's also no upside - it doesn't fundamentally change the position if they slightly surprisingly make a net gain of one or two in November (which is unlikely but not impossible). Biden will get his choice through unless there is some awful skeleton in their closet... and he just isn't going to be picking Michael Moore even if he had a 20 seat majority as Biden is a moderate within his own party and doesn't want to. So regardless of the Senate majority, he'd pick a rather dull moderate who will sail through confirmation unless it turns out they've got a dreadful secret (in which case he'll ditch them and get another) - it's a problem if he LOSES the majority in 2022 but no real benefit if he increases it.
On 2, that's the stuff of absolute fantasy in my view. Kamala Harris has had a rocky first year as VP, no doubt. Her odds of succeeding Biden have fallen for good reason. But she's still the frontrunner to be Democrat candidate if Biden calls it a day or wins reelection and hands over in 2028. Why on earth would she contemplate for one moment giving up a good chance to be the next President (albeit not as good as it looked this time last year) to be the most junior justice of the Supreme Court? Not going to happen.
@GavinBarwell I've been a Conservative councillor, MP and Minister, the Party's Director of Campaigning and Chief of Staff to a Conservative Prime Minister. But it turns out that because I believe Prime Ministers should obey the laws they impose on the rest of us, I'm a leftie
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
At last. Biden gets a break.
A couple of thoughts (I'm assuming Breyer has been persuaded to step down):
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
Good point. The Senate rules seem to say that if there is no VP then the Chair must be a Senator... but there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the President pro tempore naming a Republican as acting Chair...
My guess is they would probably have to accept the position so that might not work
@GavinBarwell I've been a Conservative councillor, MP and Minister, the Party's Director of Campaigning and Chief of Staff to a Conservative Prime Minister. But it turns out that because I believe Prime Ministers should obey the laws they impose on the rest of us, I'm a leftie
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
I'm not sure it had because nobody knew what Leave actually meant. Remain just meant the status quo (not great, even as a Remainer I want changes) and Leave meant some completely unknown outcome. I mean even as a Remainer I can think of some unlikely circumstances where I would vote Leave if I knew the outcome.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
Oh, absolutely. The problem was that negotiating a clear future status before the vote didn't really suit either side.
I'd hope that if there is to be a second Scottish independence referendum at some point, the lessons are learned and a proper prospectus is put to the voters. But I think it's a forlorn hope.
Although I don't much like the SNP I am reasonably sympathetic to an independence referendum, but I think there should be a choice of options on the initial ballot and then either a transferable vote and a confirmatory referendum to ensure majority. Regions of Scotland should also have the option to remain even if there is a majority in the main cities. There should also be a referendum of rUK on any deal struck subsequently. SNPers would not like any of this because they only like results that favour their narrow view.
The only thing that might prevent that is a Russian incursion in Ukraine in the meantime
Given we switched out Prime Ministers in the middle of bothWorld Wars and the Tories dumped Thatcher in the run up to the Gulf War, why?
If I were a Tory Mp then it would make we want to change the guard even more urgently, not less. But I suspect that is not how the mass of them think.
I'd assume most MPs of most parties are loyalists, they'll go with the flow even if a bit unhappy most of the time. Things have to get really bad for more than a handful to actually seek an ousting, and it probably wouldn't take much for those people to pull back from the brink. A bit of distracting news here, a better performance there, and perhaps there is not the need after all.
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
That won't change the balance though, will it? He needs some of the republicans appointed to keel over before the SC fatally undermines support for their rather daft constitution.
Securing a long term liberal appointment is no minor thing though. That that is so is ridiculous, but that's the system I guess.
What is ridiculous is that the US has a court that (a) has so much power and so little accountability and (b) whose members are so plainly partisan and political in their judgments.
Well, the latter part is due in part to the hyper-partisanship of the US political system, so human nature almost compels judges to start from their conclusions and work backwards.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
Thank fuck the vote WAS respected. Eventually
I see you are not capable of a sane discussion then? See conversation/disagreement between myself and @Applicant on the topic. That is how it is done. As per your language and style - What a twat you are.
i readily confess that in my mellow later years this is one subject that can still make me very angry. But my anger is righteous and justified
Remainers who wanted to cancel democracy and have a “people’s vote” were not just lying, scheming hypocrites, they were playing with terrible fire. Like infants with gelignite. If the vote had been annulled who would ever have voted again, on the Leave side? Why bother? That’s 17 million people. Who’s to say you fuckers wouldn’t have called a 3rd vote if you’d also lost the 2nd?
And so on, and so forth.
As I said. Enough. You made a terrible moral choice. Feel free to blame it on David Cameron’s ineptitude in framing the referendum the way he did. He is certainly to blame, in part
I withdraw the 'Twat' comment Leon as that was big of you to then respond with a positive response back to me.
I think it is fair to say that I wouldn't have started with a referendum that was 'Do you want to remain or leave'. We were stuffed after that (see my other posts for the alternatives). Even if Remain had won we would have had calls for another referendum if it had been close from leave. And after Leave won you are right we are into what you describe. The whole thing was a cockup from the start.
Brexit could have been negotiated well or badly and we should have voted after that not before. In my opinion it has been done badly. Hopefully in time it can be improved. I am not a Rejoiner now we have left, but I want to see some of the mess sorted out. I used to negotiate lots of contracts and sometimes you have to say 'I'm sorry we just can't do this' when you really wanted to in the first place.
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
Wordle is an interesting game, but more interesting is how it is a complete clone of Lingo TV show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(American_game_show)) yet this seems to go unnoticed by the media. I guess that makes it a less interesting story.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
I'm not sure it had because nobody knew what Leave actually meant. Remain just meant the status quo (not great, even as a Remainer I want changes) and Leave meant some completely unknown outcome. I mean even as a Remainer I can think of some unlikely circumstances where I would vote Leave if I knew the outcome.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
Oh, absolutely. The problem was that negotiating a clear future status before the vote didn't really suit either side.
I'd hope that if there is to be a second Scottish independence referendum at some point, the lessons are learned and a proper prospectus is put to the voters. But I think it's a forlorn hope.
Although I don't much like the SNP I am reasonably sympathetic to an independence referendum, but I think there should be a choice of options on the initial ballot and then either a transferable vote and a confirmatory referendum to ensure majority. Regions of Scotland should also have the option to remain even if there is a majority in the main cities. There should also be a referendum of rUK on any deal struck subsequently. SNPers would not like any of this because they only like results that favour their narrow view.
You're contradicting yourself - demanding [edit] certainty within each option and then introducing complications which make that impossible.
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
That won't change the balance though, will it? He needs some of the republicans appointed to keel over before the SC fatally undermines support for their rather daft constitution.
Securing a long term liberal appointment is no minor thing though. That that is so is ridiculous, but that's the system I guess.
What is ridiculous is that the US has a court that (a) has so much power and so little accountability and (b) whose members are so plainly partisan and political in their judgments.
On (b), the main problem - and showing why rushes to gain short-term advantage in the US political system always usually backfire - stems from Harry Reid in 2013 getting rid of the filibuster for federal judges below the SC level in order to get Obama's nominees through. Worked short-term until McConnell then announced he was abolishing it for SC judges as well off the back of Reid's move. Which then allowed for Trump to move through with the 3 SC justices he did.
And yet the Democratic leadership is trying to get rid of the Senate filibuster for legislation - thankfully a couple of their number can see a few moves ahead in the game.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
Mainstream Christian belief is the age of miracles is over, direct intervention now a no no.
Well that sucks. We could use a miracle now and then.
I am not religious but the way we were able to develop successful vaccines for Covid bordered on the miraculous.
It was certainly fortuitous but had reasonable explanation. I'm talking full on inexplicble eucatastrophe, we deserve that.
As I say, I am not religous but I have always thought the most compelling case for the existence of God was water. It is really weird and most of its eccentricities are absolutely essential to life.
So, very unusually, water is lighter in the solid state than the liquid. If it wasn't the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and there would be no life. It is crystaline and white in its solid state. If it wasn't the planet would have overheated. It has a remarkably high latent heat which is essential to keep water flowing off mountain tops through the year. It has a very high specific heat which allows the whole planet to remain temperate. It is known as the universal solvent which makes life possible. It is made of a potentially explosive and a flammable gas and yet extinguishes flames. Its boiling point is 100c but it is capable of very large scale evaporation, despite having a usefully high surface tension which makes pond life possible. It is almost inexplicably abundant.
No doubt there are many more but if there was some intelligent designer who built a Universe capable of life and indeed us, the effort put into tweaking the characteristics of water were spectacular.
Just been listening to Chris Bryant answering a statement from Johnson about dogs being given priority to leave Kabul and it was impossible to believe Johnson
It's like watching a movie where the lead character plays an inveterate liar. You can't see him any other way. That's going to be quite something for the government to deal with if he stays on
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations.
If that were the case, the second vote would be Accept vs Go Back And Negotiate Again.
Don't have a problem with that, but you might have to accept that the final negotiation is to do nothing and the people need to be given that option as well eventually if they reject all other outcomes. I'm not sure how many referenda you have to get to that point. As I said I am not a fan of them generally. I tend to believe in a representative democracy.
But Remain had already been rejected, that's the point.
I'm not sure it had because nobody knew what Leave actually meant. Remain just meant the status quo (not great, even as a Remainer I want changes) and Leave meant some completely unknown outcome. I mean even as a Remainer I can think of some unlikely circumstances where I would vote Leave if I knew the outcome.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
Oh, absolutely. The problem was that negotiating a clear future status before the vote didn't really suit either side.
I'd hope that if there is to be a second Scottish independence referendum at some point, the lessons are learned and a proper prospectus is put to the voters. But I think it's a forlorn hope.
it’s not a forlorn hope. The UK government is in charge of any future Scottish referendum, and we DO need to learn the lessons of the Brexit vote.
I am a Leaver (my vote nearly went the other way, FWIW) but I readily concede the way Cameron conducted it was appallingly irresponsible, classic insouciant Etonian arrogance blowing up in his face
Before any vote we should have had a cross party, bipartisan Farage-meets-Blair commission setting out exactly what Remain and Leave meant.
Alternatively or maybe in addition, it should have been a two stage referendum. If Remain won, we stayed. If Leave won, we should then have had a 2nd vote (before we triggered Article 50) where we could all decide exactly what kind of Leave we wanted.
Almost certainly soft Leave would have triumphed, EEA or the like. The people’s will would have been respected and all these bitter and terrible divisions would have been largely avoided
We CAN learn that lesson for indyref2, if and when it happens (sometime in the 2030s is my guess). If you have referenda, you need to do them properly. Instead, we just threw a grenade at our constitution, and prayed that it would all turn out OK. Tut
You are not going to like this Leon, but that is an excellent post!
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
At last. Biden gets a break.
A couple of thoughts (I'm assuming Breyer has been persuaded to step down):
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
Good point. The Senate rules seem to say that if there is no VP then the Chair must be a Senator... but there doesn't appear to be anything stopping the President pro tempore naming a Republican as acting Chair...
My guess is they would probably have to accept the position so that might not work
Yeah, I figured there had to be a flaw in my cunning plan.
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
At last. Biden gets a break.
A couple of thoughts (I'm assuming Breyer has been persuaded to step down):
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
On 1, was there ever a point since the 2020 election, that Democrats were highly confident of holding the Senate in 2022? I mean the map isn't bad, but one net loss and they lose it, and it's a midterm. There's also no upside - it doesn't fundamentally change the position if they slightly surprisingly make a net gain of one or two in November (which is unlikely but not impossible). Biden will get his choice through unless there is some awful skeleton in their closet... and he just isn't going to be picking Michael Moore even if he had a 20 seat majority as Biden is a moderate within his own party and doesn't want to.
On 2, that's the stuff of absolute fantasy in my view. Kamala Harris has had a rocky first year as VP, no doubt. Her odds of succeeding Biden have fallen for good reason. But she's still the frontrunner to be Democrat candidate if Biden calls it a day or wins reelection and hands over in 2028. Why on earth would she contemplate for one moment giving up a good chance to be the next President (albeit not as good as it looked this time last year) to be the most junior justice of the Supreme Court? Not going to happen.
On points:
1. Yes, there was a time they were confident of winning a majority. Two seats are coming up in states Biden won but a Republican was retiring / standing (PA / WI). They are not defending any Senators in states Trump won. Up to a few months ago, the view was that a worst case was that the current situation would hold but there was an optimism the Senate would not need Harris' vote.
2. A blind man with a stick can see that Harris' chances of succeeding Biden are very slim at the moment. Her polling figures are dire, probably the worst of a modern VP, and most polls see her losing vs Trump. More to the point, (1) her relationship with Biden is fraught and (2) the Democrats quietly realise the above as well. I accept the biggest issue is she would probably dig in given there is a more than 0% chance Biden could keel over tomorrow and she would be the President. However, if that is the case (i.e. the Democrats are worried about Biden's health), that probably increases their urgency to force a solution.
I guess we don't know whether it is the fact of the Gray report arriving or its actual contents that are key to the future.
In other words:
- How many MPs already have their letters in? - How many are waiting for the report because they simply want to act in strict fairness, but already prettyuch know their letters are going in? - How many require to see what degree of involvement attributed to Johnson before they act?
It is quite possible that report will give little additional.information on Johnson's involvement, either because there isn't more or because it is beyond scope, and yet it still be enough to bring him down.
Or it could be harsher and not do so.
Just depends where the 54th MP lies on the continuum more than anything else.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
Thank fuck the vote WAS respected. Eventually
I see you are not capable of a sane discussion then? See conversation/disagreement between myself and @Applicant on the topic. That is how it is done. As per your language and style - What a twat you are.
i readily confess that in my mellow later years this is one subject that can still make me very angry. But my anger is righteous and justified
Remainers who wanted to cancel democracy and have a “people’s vote” were not just lying, scheming hypocrites, they were playing with terrible fire. Like infants with gelignite. If the vote had been annulled who would ever have voted again, on the Leave side? Why bother? That’s 17 million people. Who’s to say you fuckers wouldn’t have called a 3rd vote if you’d also lost the 2nd?
And so on, and so forth.
As I said. Enough. You made a terrible moral choice. Feel free to blame it on David Cameron’s ineptitude in framing the referendum the way he did. He is certainly to blame, in part
I withdraw the 'Twat' comment Leon as that was big of you to then respond with a positive response back to me.
I think it is fair to say that I wouldn't have started with a referendum that was 'Do you want to remain or leave'. We were stuffed after that (see my other posts for the alternatives). Even if Remain had won we would have had calls for another referendum if it had been close from leave. And after Leave won you are right we are into what you describe. The whole thing was a cockup from the start.
Brexit could have been negotiated well or badly and we should have voted after that not before. In my opinion it has been done badly. Hopefully in time it can be improved. I am not a Rejoiner now we have left, but I want to see some of the mess sorted out. I used to negotiate lots of contracts and sometimes you have to say 'I'm sorry we just can't do this' when you really wanted to in the first place.
Arguably it was negotiated beforehand - David Cameron made a half-baked attempt to get some sort of acceptable relationship with Europe, before putting it to a referendum.
Ideally, we should have had a referendum in 1992 or 2007 at which we could have put the brakes on. Much of the blame lies with politicians who went ahead anyway despite knowing they weren't taking people with them. Especially those who insisted the results were small, it was a tidying up exercise, ever closer union was just a polite fiction...
WASHINGTON (AP) — AP sources: Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer will retire, giving Joe Biden the 1st Supreme Court pick of his presidency.
Not, surely, a huge surprise?
Unless Democrats had been very confident of advancing in the Senate in November (something I don't actually rule out as the map isn't bad for them, but which is unlikely) this was always on the cards given Breyer is 83 years old. It would have been a huge gamble to risk it and, no matter how dedicated he is, he'd surely like a bit of a retirement.
The narrow position in the Senate shouldn't be a problem. Manchin and Sinema are awkward on substantive legislation, but it'd be very surprising if they voted against confirmation of a justice nominated by Biden unless he/she has some extremely big flaw. And Collins and Murkowski are both highly possible confirmation votes in a close one.
Manchin in particular couldn't really veto on ideological grounds even if the choice was a bit more liberal than he'd like - his whole point with confirming Kavanaugh was that he DIDN'T agree with him on a political level (or "judicial philosophy" level if you want to put a gloss on it) but Trump had the constitutional right to nominate and the sexual assault allegations were unproven so ultimately he had no grounds not to wave it through (and he gave Gorsuch the nod on the same basis, albeit he was fundamentally a pretty uncontroversial pick - maybe the least provocative thing Trump did in his time in office). All Democrats, Manchin and Sinema included, voted against Coney Barrett as it directly contradicted the precedent set for Garland in 2016.
Sensible stuff - The Dems got into a mess with the Supreme court because Ginsburg didn't stand down while Obama was president. It doesn't immediately help their position but stops it getting worse:
Liberal Justices:
Breyer - current age 83 Sotomayor - 67 Kagan - 61
Conservative Justices:
Thomas - 73 Alito - 71 Roberts - 66 Kavanaugh - 56 Gorsuch - 54 Barrett - 49
After this it could be a decade before another Supreme court change - Dems have to hope a future Dem president can replace one of Thomas/Alito/Roberts
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
Thank fuck the vote WAS respected. Eventually
I see you are not capable of a sane discussion then? See conversation/disagreement between myself and @Applicant on the topic. That is how it is done. As per your language and style - What a twat you are.
i readily confess that in my mellow later years this is one subject that can still make me very angry. But my anger is righteous and justified
Remainers who wanted to cancel democracy and have a “people’s vote” were not just lying, scheming hypocrites, they were playing with terrible fire. Like infants with gelignite. If the vote had been annulled who would ever have voted again, on the Leave side? Why bother? That’s 17 million people. Who’s to say you fuckers wouldn’t have called a 3rd vote if you’d also lost the 2nd?
And so on, and so forth.
As I said. Enough. You made a terrible moral choice. Feel free to blame it on David Cameron’s ineptitude in framing the referendum the way he did. He is certainly to blame, in part
I withdraw the 'Twat' comment Leon as that was big of you to then respond with a positive response back to me.
I think it is fair to say that I wouldn't have started with a referendum that was 'Do you want to remain or leave'. We were stuffed after that (see my other posts for the alternatives). Even if Remain had won we would have had calls for another referendum if it had been close from leave. And after Leave won you are right we are into what you describe. The whole thing was a cockup from the start.
Brexit could have been negotiated well or badly and we should have voted after that not before. In my opinion it has been done badly. Hopefully in time it can be improved. I am not a Rejoiner now we have left, but I want to see some of the mess sorted out. I used to negotiate lots of contracts and sometimes you have to say 'I'm sorry we just can't do this' when you really wanted to in the first place.
Well then we kind of agree! Cameron royally fucked it up. Then TMay made it all worse with her idiotic red lines
There was a very large constituency of Leavers, ranging from Daniel Hannah to Richard Tyndall, of this parish, to myself, who would have been more-than-happy with a holding position in EEA or EFTA and so on. Perhaps in ten years we might have voted to Rejoin? Certainly from that position Rejoin would be much easier
The mad 2nd vote Remainers played into the hands of the likes of J R Mogg and Mark Francois, and ensured the Hardest Brexit of all. Imagine being outplayed by Mark Francois. But that is what happened
It was a constitutional cow pat which Cameron casually threw at all of us. We must learn the lesson, and make the best of where we are now. It is not without upsides
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
I expect any leaking of information that is subject to a criminal investigation could be quite serious for the leaker
Wrong. Sub judice rules don't apply till someone is nicked or charged
In these circumstances the press are leaked the names of those in the report that are subject to a Met investigation then there is no consequence for the police investigation
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
Wordle is an interesting game, but more interesting is how it is a complete clone of Lingo TV show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(American_game_show)) yet this seems to go unnoticed by the media. I guess that makes it a less interesting story.
I learned the other day that Countdown is a copy of a French show, which rocked me to my core.
From the point of view of Starmer and the Labour party getting a majority.
Nothing of value was lost, by this.
Indeed - quite a rude shock that Pidders was still in a position of any influence. I'm glad that she isn't now, of course. But it does make me wonder how many others there still are.
Those who are criticising Starmer for bad decisions as DPP are really missing the point. He has been in a job, outside of politics, where he had to make very significant decisions. He went beyond the performance of being a barrister, taking the leap to be a decision maker. And not in the form a Judge, but as a prosecutor, under continuous public scrutiny. I just find that really impressive.
What did all these other people in Parliament do? Opinion writing columnist, novelist, councillor, a few years in an investment bank, think tankers... I don't think anyone is in the same league as Starmer. Just compare him to Braverman and Raab - both failed at magic circle careers, with their careers dissolving in to mid rate jobs where they failed to make any real impact; and now they seem to be being used to provide a front to provide credibility for what they and everyone else knows is bad law.
Even people like Emily Thornberry, Bob Neill, and Geoffrey Cox don't come close to Starmer, he is in a league of his own because of his background. That isn't a criticism of the other people in Parliament, experience shows that all different kinds of people can be good decision makers, and I am not exactly a fan of the Labour Party. But I do think that Starmer is exceptional in this one regard.
Enlightened sunny post from the often torrid darkage here.
Yes, and unexpected
Hmm. Last summer I had lunch with a retired but once extremely senior judge, in his sun dappled garden in Burnham on Crouch. Beautiful asparagus
Anyway, the judge told me that Starmer had often come before him, and was the most impressive lawyer he had ever observed in his court
Against that, we must set Starmer’s vocal campaign for a second vote, which was not just rotten and immoral, but would have been catastrophic for the country if it had ever succeeded. It would have destroyed democracy and likely seeded civil strife. It really is a black mark against Starmer, and he should not be allowed to forget it
Re your last paragraph on a 2nd referendum, rather than Starmer in particular, I appreciate this is your opinion but words like rotten, immoral, catastrophic, destroyed, civil strife in 2 short sentences is somewhat over the top. It is an opinion that many of us (millions in fact) think is wrong. I am no fan of referenda, but if you are going to have one on an event that has multiple outcomes if it succeeds, you should have a confirmation one on the outcome of the specific outcome (or have had that choice in the first referendum).
Sorry, but holding a second referendum with a Remain option would have been equivalent to voiding the first result. It would have meant that people who want to Leave would have had to win two referendums, but people who wanted to Remain could do so by winning only one. This is not democracy.
I disagree. They are two different things but unfortunately in the way it was actually carried out I grant you.
First you should be voting on the principle, then you are voting on the outcome of the negotiations. It isn't one sided against Leavers as potentially they may have got a deal that Remainers approved of or a deal so awful that Leavers wanted to change their mind. Everyone should be given the option of changing their minds when the details are available. None of us were given that option, which is anti democratic.
Of course it should have been done better than that so if a Government is elected on a Leave platform it could have negotiated without a referendum and then had one once people knew the outcome of the referendum, or if you must have two referendum that should be stated upfront and what the purpose of each referendum is. I am quite tempted to vote for a change and then change my mind when I see the details of that change.
Oh just shut up. It is grotesque. We had a vote, the biggest vote in our history. The prime minister solemnly told us it would be respected, whatever. Every household was sent a leaflet saying exactly that: the government will respect and enact your vote
Trying to wiggle out of this is demeaning. It is squalid. Enough
Thank fuck the vote WAS respected. Eventually
I see you are not capable of a sane discussion then? See conversation/disagreement between myself and @Applicant on the topic. That is how it is done. As per your language and style - What a twat you are.
i readily confess that in my mellow later years this is one subject that can still make me very angry. But my anger is righteous and justified
Remainers who wanted to cancel democracy and have a “people’s vote” were not just lying, scheming hypocrites, they were playing with terrible fire. Like infants with gelignite. If the vote had been annulled who would ever have voted again, on the Leave side? Why bother? That’s 17 million people. Who’s to say you fuckers wouldn’t have called a 3rd vote if you’d also lost the 2nd?
And so on, and so forth.
As I said. Enough. You made a terrible moral choice. Feel free to blame it on David Cameron’s ineptitude in framing the referendum the way he did. He is certainly to blame, in part
I withdraw the 'Twat' comment Leon as that was big of you to then respond with a positive response back to me.
I think it is fair to say that I wouldn't have started with a referendum that was 'Do you want to remain or leave'. We were stuffed after that (see my other posts for the alternatives). Even if Remain had won we would have had calls for another referendum if it had been close from leave. And after Leave won you are right we are into what you describe. The whole thing was a cockup from the start.
Brexit could have been negotiated well or badly and we should have voted after that not before. In my opinion it has been done badly. Hopefully in time it can be improved. I am not a Rejoiner now we have left, but I want to see some of the mess sorted out. I used to negotiate lots of contracts and sometimes you have to say 'I'm sorry we just can't do this' when you really wanted to in the first place.
Arguably it was negotiated beforehand - David Cameron made a half-baked attempt to get some sort of acceptable relationship with Europe, before putting it to a referendum.
Ideally, we should have had a referendum in 1992 or 2007 at which we could have put the brakes on. Much of the blame lies with politicians who went ahead anyway despite knowing they weren't taking people with them. Especially those who insisted the results were small, it was a tidying up exercise, ever closer union was just a polite fiction...
If the referendum had been held as late as the start of the Coalition, it would have been a clear Remain vote. Probably relatively easily - 65-35 I think.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
As a Lawyer, you might appreciate this rather metaphysical play set in Auschwitz that addresses these very issues. It doesn't seem to be on a streaming service at present, but the trailer gives the flavour.
One thing I don't understand: If the Sue Gray report is delayed until Monday how on Earth do @10DowningStreet@BorisJohnson think they will prevent a leak? Every Civil Servant in No10 & CO has skin in the game. Every Sunday journalist will be ordered to get it
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
Wordle is an interesting game, but more interesting is how it is a complete clone of Lingo TV show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(American_game_show)) yet this seems to go unnoticed by the media. I guess that makes it a less interesting story.
Lingo is on ITV at 3pm weekdays, hosted by Adil Ray (aka. Citizen Khan).
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
Wordle is an interesting game, but more interesting is how it is a complete clone of Lingo TV show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(American_game_show)) yet this seems to go unnoticed by the media. I guess that makes it a less interesting story.
I learned the other day that Countdown is a copy of a French show, which rocked me to my core.
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
Wordle is an interesting game, but more interesting is how it is a complete clone of Lingo TV show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(American_game_show)) yet this seems to go unnoticed by the media. I guess that makes it a less interesting story.
I learned the other day that Countdown is a copy of a French show, which rocked me to my core.
From the point of view of Starmer and the Labour party getting a majority.
Nothing of value was lost, by this.
Indeed - quite a rude shock that Pidders was still in a position of any influence. I'm glad that she isn't now, of course. But it does make me wonder how many others there still are.
What Starmer is doing, is a process, not a single event.
Absolutely. Jesus's dad was a right hard bastard, ask the Egyptians.
There's one thing that has always interested but I am scared to google it because googling anything involving The Holocaust leads to 'interesting' sites.
So, why did Yahweh save the Jews from the bondage of Pharaoh but didn't intervene during The Holocaust?
Well, arguably He did. He sent the allied armies.
I'd imagine they lost quite a few under the reign of the Pharaoh too before they escaped across the Red Sea. Being in slavery for long periods doesn't tend to do much for population levels.
True, I mean he directly intervened with Pharoah, the plagues etc, but not directly with The Holocaust.
As a Lawyer, you might appreciate this rather metaphysical play set in Auschwitz that addresses these very issues. It doesn't seem to be on a streaming service at present, but the trailer gives the flavour.
The Labour left do seem to have become entirely deflated recently. With the possible expection of the first months of the Blair government they seem the most subdued I've ever seen them.
Perhaps they've got noone left that isn't entirely discredited?
(I know little about Labour, but I always win money on their internal politics, whereas I do know a little about the Tories, and yet always lose money there)
It's an interesting case study in how things become popular on the internet, particularly when you compare it with other similarly minimalist word games, such as Guess My Word which doesn't have a way of sharing your performance in a graphically pleasing way without spoiling the game for others. It does have a cool word cloud you can look at of other people's guesses, but that very obviously acts as a spoiler.
Wordle is an interesting game, but more interesting is how it is a complete clone of Lingo TV show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingo_(American_game_show)) yet this seems to go unnoticed by the media. I guess that makes it a less interesting story.
I learned the other day that Countdown is a copy of a French show, which rocked me to my core.
The Crystal Maze, too.
What?!
Gods, what has become of us as a nation? I don't know who we even our anymore.
I guess we don't know whether it is the fact of the Gray report arriving or its actual contents that are key to the future.
In other words:
- How many MPs already have their letters in? - How many are waiting for the report because they simply want to act in strict fairness, but already prettyuch know their letters are going in? - How many require to see what degree of involvement attributed to Johnson before they act?
It is quite possible that report will give little additional.information on Johnson's involvement, either because there isn't more or because it is beyond scope, and yet it still be enough to bring him down.
Or it could be harsher and not do so.
Just depends where the 54th MP lies on the continuum more than anything else.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Roman_Empire
I don't believe any such deal could ever have been made, and after about the third rejection there would have been a real risk a government would have been elected on a platform to give up the attempt and remain. Which is, of course, why no Leavers proposed such a thing. Of course a government might also have been elected on a specific Leave platform (as indeed happened for different reasons).
https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/1486366032205955074?s=20
But they chose instead to act like vandals and here we are, with Boris Johnson propelled into a position to do all that he has as arguably the only person who could credibly break that deadlock.
They went on to say discussions continue between Sue Gray and the Met over the report
We have lawyers on here so my question is, if the report names individuals and it is released into the public domain does that either compromise those named or the police investigation and could this delay the release further
Remainers who wanted to cancel democracy and have a “people’s vote” were not just lying, scheming hypocrites, they were playing with terrible fire. Like infants with gelignite. If the vote had been annulled who would ever have voted again, on the Leave side? Why bother? That’s 17 million people. Who’s to say you fuckers wouldn’t have called a 3rd vote if you’d also lost the 2nd?
And so on, and so forth.
As I said. Enough. You made a terrible moral choice. Feel free to blame it on David Cameron’s ineptitude in framing the referendum the way he did. He is certainly to blame, in part
1. Suggests the Democrats are less confident of holding the Senate, which is a fair enough assumption given the current polling;
2. Does this mean Kamala Harris is being lined up to step down as VP and is nominated to the SC? Biden has pretty much promised to appoint a Black Woman. Big problems are (1) if Harris steps down, it is 50-50 in the Senate with no tie-break and (2) a new VP has to be appointed by both Houses and Biden wouldn't have a majority if Harris steps down. Can Harris stay in the Senate and vote for a successor and then step down? That would get over the hurdles, as the new VP would vote for Harris to the SC. However, not sure whether that would happen - 25th seems to suggest you need a vacancy.
The whole thing was appallingly flawed. We should always be voting for something with substance not some vague notion.
If WW2 had happened in prehistoric times, rather than 75 years ago, I'm sure this is how it would have been reported.
Their infantile, anti-democratic hypocrisy ensured the hardest Brexit of all. A bitter but splendid irony
Unless Democrats had been very confident of advancing in the Senate in November (something I don't actually rule out as the map isn't bad for them, but which is unlikely) this was always on the cards given Breyer is 83 years old. It would have been a huge gamble to risk it and, no matter how dedicated he is, he'd surely like a bit of a retirement.
The narrow position in the Senate shouldn't be a problem. Manchin and Sinema are awkward on substantive legislation, but it'd be very surprising if they voted against confirmation of a justice nominated by Biden unless he/she has some extremely big flaw. And Collins and Murkowski are both highly possible confirmation votes in a close one.
Manchin in particular couldn't really veto on ideological grounds even if the choice was a bit more liberal than he'd like - his whole point with confirming Kavanaugh was that he DIDN'T agree with him on a political level (or "judicial philosophy" level if you want to put a gloss on it) but Trump had the constitutional right to nominate and the sexual assault allegations were unproven so ultimately he had no grounds not to wave it through (and he gave Gorsuch the nod on the same basis, albeit he was fundamentally a pretty uncontroversial pick - maybe the least provocative thing Trump did in his time in office). All Democrats, Manchin and Sinema included, voted against Coney Barrett as it directly contradicted the precedent set for Garland in 2016.
I'd hope that if there is to be a second Scottish independence referendum at some point, the lessons are learned and a proper prospectus is put to the voters. But I think it's a forlorn hope.
Omar Bradley
My favourite story in that context is an elderly colleague who used to pant as he walked up the stairs to our second floor office.
"Why don't you take the lift?"
"I voted against nuclear power, which means less power available, and I need to accept the consequences of my actions."
That connection between political action and personal life is largely broken in representative democracy - we always say that "They" have decided something, giving us an implied freedom to try to get around it or ignore it.
Wow!
It appears that Ukraine requested 100,000 helmets and armored vests from Germany to equip its volunteers in the event of Russia’s offensive.
Berlin agreed to provide just 5,000 helmets.
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1486390287564001280?s=20
Maybe the Allies managed to save those Jews who survived the Holocaust simply a bit earlier than the Supreme Being, somewhat pre-empting his work. Wonder what he thinks of having his role usurped in this way?
Once this report is out, unless there's been an extraordinary whitewash, he is finished. The only thing that might prevent that is a Russian incursion in Ukraine in the meantime but I doubt that will come soon enough for Bojo.
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1486391611269566468?s=20
@GavinBarwell I've been a Conservative councillor, MP and Minister, the Party's Director of Campaigning and Chief of Staff to a Conservative Prime Minister. But it turns out that because I believe Prime Ministers should obey the laws they impose on the rest of us, I'm a leftie
I am a Leaver (my vote nearly went the other way, FWIW) but I readily concede the way Cameron conducted it was appallingly irresponsible, classic insouciant Etonian arrogance blowing up in his face
Before any vote we should have had a cross party, bipartisan Farage-meets-Blair commission setting out exactly what Remain and Leave meant.
Alternatively or maybe in addition, it should have been a two stage referendum. If Remain won, we stayed. If Leave won, we should then have had a 2nd vote (before we triggered Article 50) where we could all decide exactly what kind of Leave we wanted.
Almost certainly soft Leave would have triumphed, EEA or the like. The people’s will would have been respected and all these bitter and terrible divisions would have been largely avoided
We CAN learn that lesson for indyref2, if and when it happens (sometime in the 2030s is my guess). If you have referenda, you need to do them properly. Instead, we just threw a grenade at our constitution, and prayed that it would all turn out OK. Tut
Moses of course was led by God out of Egypt to Israel in the first place.
On 2, that's the stuff of absolute fantasy in my view. Kamala Harris has had a rocky first year as VP, no doubt. Her odds of succeeding Biden have fallen for good reason. But she's still the frontrunner to be Democrat candidate if Biden calls it a day or wins reelection and hands over in 2028. Why on earth would she contemplate for one moment giving up a good chance to be the next President (albeit not as good as it looked this time last year) to be the most junior justice of the Supreme Court? Not going to happen.
He is a remainer
I think it is fair to say that I wouldn't have started with a referendum that was 'Do you want to remain or leave'. We were stuffed after that (see my other posts for the alternatives). Even if Remain had won we would have had calls for another referendum if it had been close from leave. And after Leave won you are right we are into what you describe. The whole thing was a cockup from the start.
Brexit could have been negotiated well or badly and we should have voted after that not before. In my opinion it has been done badly. Hopefully in time it can be improved. I am not a Rejoiner now we have left, but I want to see some of the mess sorted out. I used to negotiate lots of contracts and sometimes you have to say 'I'm sorry we just can't do this' when you really wanted to in the first place.
Earlier you said cases are rising. Are you sure? Today’s number is slightly lower than last Wednesday’s.
They seem flat?
So, very unusually, water is lighter in the solid state than the liquid. If it wasn't the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and there would be no life.
It is crystaline and white in its solid state. If it wasn't the planet would have overheated.
It has a remarkably high latent heat which is essential to keep water flowing off mountain tops through the year.
It has a very high specific heat which allows the whole planet to remain temperate.
It is known as the universal solvent which makes life possible.
It is made of a potentially explosive and a flammable gas and yet extinguishes flames.
Its boiling point is 100c but it is capable of very large scale evaporation, despite having a usefully high surface tension which makes pond life possible.
It is almost inexplicably abundant.
No doubt there are many more but if there was some intelligent designer who built a Universe capable of life and indeed us, the effort put into tweaking the characteristics of water were spectacular.
It's like watching a movie where the lead character plays an inveterate liar. You can't see him any other way. That's going to be quite something for the government to deal with if he stays on
To qualify
Unless it is in the public interest
1. Yes, there was a time they were confident of winning a majority. Two seats are coming up in states Biden won but a Republican was retiring / standing (PA / WI). They are not defending any Senators in states Trump won. Up to a few months ago, the view was that a worst case was that the current situation would hold but there was an optimism the Senate would not need Harris' vote.
2. A blind man with a stick can see that Harris' chances of succeeding Biden are very slim at the moment. Her polling figures are dire, probably the worst of a modern VP, and most polls see her losing vs Trump. More to the point, (1) her relationship with Biden is fraught and (2) the Democrats quietly realise the above as well. I accept the biggest issue is she would probably dig in given there is a more than 0% chance Biden could keel over tomorrow and she would be the President. However, if that is the case (i.e. the Democrats are worried about Biden's health), that probably increases their urgency to force a solution.
In other words:
- How many MPs already have their letters in?
- How many are waiting for the report because they simply want to act in strict fairness, but already prettyuch know their letters are going in?
- How many require to see what degree of involvement attributed to Johnson before they act?
It is quite possible that report will give little additional.information on Johnson's involvement, either because there isn't more or because it is beyond scope, and yet it still be enough to bring him down.
Or it could be harsher and not do so.
Just depends where the 54th MP lies on the continuum more than anything else.
From the point of view of Starmer and the Labour party getting a majority.
Nothing of value was lost, by this.
Ideally, we should have had a referendum in 1992 or 2007 at which we could have put the brakes on. Much of the blame lies with politicians who went ahead anyway despite knowing they weren't taking people with them. Especially those who insisted the results were small, it was a tidying up exercise, ever closer union was just a polite fiction...
Liberal Justices:
Breyer - current age 83
Sotomayor - 67
Kagan - 61
Conservative Justices:
Thomas - 73
Alito - 71
Roberts - 66
Kavanaugh - 56
Gorsuch - 54
Barrett - 49
After this it could be a decade before another Supreme court change - Dems have to hope a future Dem president can replace one of Thomas/Alito/Roberts
There was a very large constituency of Leavers, ranging from Daniel Hannah to Richard Tyndall, of this parish, to myself, who would have been more-than-happy with a holding position in EEA or EFTA and so on. Perhaps in ten years we might have voted to Rejoin? Certainly from that position Rejoin would be much easier
The mad 2nd vote Remainers played into the hands of the likes of J R Mogg and Mark Francois, and ensured the Hardest Brexit of all. Imagine being outplayed by Mark Francois. But that is what happened
It was a constitutional cow pat which Cameron casually threw at all of us. We must learn the lesson, and make the best of where we are now. It is not without upsides
And now, the next episode of Archive 18. Later
https://letterboxd.com/film/god-on-trial/
102292 95869 Jan 25th
94326 94746
88447 93332
74799 90829
95787 91817
107364 92369
108069 92622
94432 95696 Jan18th
84429 99466
70924 107722
81713 117800
99652 127040
109133 138268
I) It is still with lawyers
2) Consulting the civil service HR people
3) Consulting with the Met police
Perhaps they've got noone left that isn't entirely discredited?
(I know little about Labour, but I always win money on their internal politics, whereas I do know a little about the Tories, and yet always lose money there)
Gods, what has become of us as a nation? I don't know who we even our anymore.