As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
First time that likely not a single white male holds the PM post or any of the 3 great offices of state.
However while I am all for diversity we must not forget that white males tend to be more Conservative than average so not sure not even having one at the top is a great move, Farage will note
Boris Johnson was mixed race. So technically since he became PM that has been the case, depending on how you count Raab as well.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
No, its not true. Again how did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
If the ECHR only works when its not needed, it doesn't work.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks. Pretty simple really.
Why stop with those in prison? What about other forms of punishment? Is it the crime or the sentence? Just to give one question.
I agree with you, but I don’t mind being forced to be clear on the details.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks. Pretty simple really.
And I agree there's no problem saying prisoners cannot vote. Did we ever actually extend the franchise? A quick google shows the below, which is pretty damn limited and if it happened seems to show the case was no big deal and so annoying though it was hardly worth abandoning the entire system. It's not even clear we did implement it.
Following further calls from the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to resolve the impasse, the Secretary of State for Justice, David Lidington, published proposals in November 2017. These proposals are more limited in scope than those included in previous proposals. The main change proposed is to allow prisoners on Temporary Licence to vote. In December 2017 the Council of Europe welcomed the proposals, agreeing to them as an acceptable compromise that would address the criticisms raised by Hirst (No 2).
As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
I'm actually glad they haven't (because I don't like identity politics) but I must admit I do wonder if the BBC would have plastered a headline "historic first black Chancellor appointed" if this had been a Labour PM and David Lammy had got the job, rather than 'Kwasi Kwarteng appointed new Chancellor'.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
Not so. Courts are obliged to do their utmost to interpret statutes in such a way that they are ECHR compliant, but if they can't, the statute overrides ECHR.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks. Pretty simple really.
Why stop with those in prison? What about other forms of punishment? Is it the crime or the sentence? Just to give one question.
I agree with you, but I don’t mind being forced to be clear on the details.
It’s the fact you can’t get to the polling station…
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
I think for Remainers it is a last shred of European rule over the UK that they are desperate to cling onto. Which is probably reason enough to get rid of it. But more importantly, all the arguments in favour of it seem to melt away when analysed, like snow in spring sun
You'd cut down every law in England to get at the Remainers? Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
No, its not true. Again how did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
If the ECHR only works when its not needed, it doesn't work.
There is no point in arguing with someone who denies that acts of parliament change UK law.
It seems like Truss is making appointments like she overwhelmingly won the MPs and achieved a crushing victory in the members vote.
That's the same mistake Theresa May made.
Hardly. May brought people like Johnson, Fox and Davis in. This looks far more cliquey than that.
The AI in Trussbot has been told that strong leaders do down their enemies and has taken it far too literally.
(Which is odd, really. Because a proper pattern matching AI would notice that having internal enemies inside the tent stops the tent filling with urine.)
Electorally the strategy serms to be Cleverly and Kwarteng for the South and London 'delivering' Trussanomics and brexit/foreign policy and Braverman to shore up the Red Wall with red meat at Home double teaming with Kemi on the culture wars. Theres your next 2 years.
Genuine question, does Deputy PM effectively make you “number 2” in the rankings.
I was never quite sure.
According to the government's own website, yes it does (or at least it did for Raab, who was previously second when First Secretary of State but not Deputy PM) - the page itself is currently being updated though but wiki has what it looked like in July.
In practice ministerial ranking seems to have no true reasoning or purpose.
I think, though, that this is determined by the PM from time to time.
So I don't believe Clegg, for example, was second in the order of precedence, and therefore did not Chair Cabinet in Cameron's absence (I may be wrong on that but that's my understanding).
Raab was number 2 as DPM as you say, but I think part of that was to soften his demotion from Foreign Secretary (along with the DPM title itself).
Can't really understand the need for ranking at all. In the event of a mass event decapitating government under our system we're not going to go designated survivor and appoint the 17th person in the ranking or something.
Amusingly, the wikipedia list from July shows Rees-Mogg was at the very bottom of the list of Cabinet Ministers in the rankings, below even the minister without portfolio - that, Liz, rather shows the non-importance of the job he was given as a junior minister granted Cabinet status despite not being a secretary of state.
Only non-Cabinet ministers were below him, so don't really count. He was literally the least important member of the Cabinet, officially. That must have bruised his ego.
I think it's less for cases of mass extinction (as it is in the US where it is fixed by the constitution and legislation), and more to avoid squabbles about chairing Cabinet sub-committees.
As you say, if there were some terrible incident the PM would be a person who could command a majority in the Commons (whereas in the US, there needs to be a Presidential line of succession as it isn't about commanding a majority in Congress - plenty of Presidents don't).
So it's essentially something that's handy, but not really necessary, to have.
As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
I think they're doing a good job of showing they've shed racial prejudice at the top. I'd be interested in a poll showing whether this shifts the attitude of most voters from ethnic minorities. I doubt it, but could be wrong.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks. Pretty simple really.
Why stop with those in prison? What about other forms of punishment? Is it the crime or the sentence? Just to give one question.
I agree with you, but I don’t mind being forced to be clear on the details.
It’s the fact you can’t get to the polling station…
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
Not so. Courts are obliged to do their utmost to interpret statutes in such a way that they are ECHR compliant, but if they can't, the statute overrides ECHR.
My layman thought was simply that if an act was not deemed to be compliant the courts can say so, so non-compliance did not prevent legislation - even if it 'sends a steer' to make a change, parliament could decline to make a change.
But people who are saying it is preventing us doing things cannot simultaneously argue it is ineffective so it is pointless.
The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in October 2000, made available, for the first time, a remedy for breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK courts. This means that, in appropriate cases, all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are tasked with deciding whether public bodies have acted compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, through the Human Rights Act, Parliament imposed on all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, a duty to interpret legislation so as that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, so far as it is possible to do so. If it is not possible to interpret legislation compatibly with the Convention, the courts can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" – which sends a clear steer to legislators that they should change the law to make it Convention-compliant. No UK court, including the Supreme Court, has the power to "strike down" legislation if it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
No, its not true. Again how did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
If the ECHR only works when its not needed, it doesn't work.
There is no point in arguing with someone who denies that acts of parliament change UK law.
I agree with that, not deny it.
I deny that the ECtHR is worth any more than a wet paper bag.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
I think for Remainers it is a last shred of European rule over the UK that they are desperate to cling onto. Which is probably reason enough to get rid of it. But more importantly, all the arguments in favour of it seem to melt away when analysed, like snow in spring sun
You'd cut down every law in England to get at the Remainers? Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
No, I wouldn’t. I mean, I’d enjoy it, but no. I was being provocative
But I do believe the government must probably take us out of the ECHR in some form or other
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I absolutely do not trust the protection of human rights with populist politicians looking for votes.
It sounds like the core problem you have is that you don't trust most voters. Perhaps it's a shame that it's now taboo to argue against democracy.
It’s not about trusting voters . You need some protection against governments who might not want to behave properly regarding citizens rights .
Why?
I thought that would be obvious . Are you seriously arguing that a government could do anything regarding rights without any recourse at all for people .
No, we have democracy for recourse.
Democracy is the guarantor of rights. The Council of Europe which was blackmailed by Putin into letting Putin's Russia be a full member until February this year is not a recourse.
Democracy is not a guarantor of rights. Rights can be taken away in a democracy.
Rights can be taken away in non-democracies easier. Useless or nobbled courts are not a protection, as you admitted already.
Rights are much harder still to take away in countries which have independent judiciaries and which are signatories to the ECHR.
Good luck to any democratically elected UK government trying to remove the right to vote from any group while we are members of the ECHR. It is merely a matter of passing legislation should we leave.
What evidence do you have for that claim?
What claim? It is a statement of fact that acts of parliament change the law in the UK - unless, for example, they run contrary to the ECHR.
No, its not true. Again how did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
If the ECHR only works when its not needed, it doesn't work.
There is no point in arguing with someone who denies that acts of parliament change UK law.
I agree with that, not deny it.
I deny that the ECtHR is worth any more than a wet paper bag.
And yet the government argues it is so effective it is binding their hands. Curious. I'd respect them more if they took your view.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
Big England = UK energy. Presumably your only objection to Bulgarian judges telling the Jocks, Taffs and Paddies what to do is that it’s entirely England’s job.
Apparently he's been such a knob in his previous roles that there's no junior minister willing to work with him either. So he's got to be his own minister of state too.
As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
I think they're doing a good job of showing they've shed racial prejudice at the top. I'd be interested in a poll showing whether this shifts the attitude of most voters from ethnic minorities. I doubt it, but could be wrong.
Why does that matter? Gaining ethnic minority voters should not be the reason they take a colour blind approach to MP selection and ministerial appointment.
As the humble grandson of immigrants to this country how awesome is our new PM's cabinet.
Fourth consecutive BAME Chancellor, BAME Foreign Secretary, and likely third consecutive Home Secretary from a BAME background.
Remind me what Corbyn said about only Labour could unlock the potential of minorities?
I think they're doing a good job of showing they've shed racial prejudice at the top. I'd be interested in a poll showing whether this shifts the attitude of most voters from ethnic minorities. I doubt it, but could be wrong.
What gives you the impression the Tories had racial prejudice at the top?
I never encountered it and I've been a member (on and off) for twenty years.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
I don't think we need to be babysat. I'm simply not persuaded, given the general approach to the convention, why it is necessary to junk the whole thing. I think the general competence of ministers who are obsessed with a particular policy they want to enact, rather than a concern about properly reviewing rights, is reasonable to quetion. They want to stop X, but are going to open up and redo the whole alphabet.
I don't see much gain but plenty to risk.
Yup. The classic example is the judgement on prisoner voting. All the ECHR said was that we shouldn’t have a blanket ban with no proportion or reason to it. Our politicians decided to argue the toss and present it as saying all prisoners should get the vote. In fact it was/is an easy fix.
And I'll be honest, I hated that judgement. It made me mad for the court to argue that point. But we didn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater about it.
I hated it, but then came to think it’s fair comment. Do the work and don’t have a blanket ban with no reasoning. It’s a reminder of the need to do things right.
What reasoning was required? You are in prison as you have been found guilty of a crime. Until release you may not vote. Tough. Don’t commit crime folks. Pretty simple really.
Why stop with those in prison? What about other forms of punishment? Is it the crime or the sentence? Just to give one question.
I agree with you, but I don’t mind being forced to be clear on the details.
It’s the fact you can’t get to the polling station…
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that such constitutional checks act as speed bumps, providing the time for the ultimate arbiter in a democracy to, if they wish to, course-correct away from whatever brand of nastiness offered by the Government. Such things can never be absolute guarantees of our liberties. As such, I see things like the ECHR etc as an additional safety net. They can't guarantee our rights in the face of an electorate that is apathetic or openly hostile but neither can Parliament not the Courts. At best they can delay, and allow events to intervene. It's not perfect, but worthwhile imo.
It seems like Truss is making appointments like she overwhelmingly won the MPs and achieved a crushing victory in the members vote.
That's the same mistake Theresa May made.
Hardly. May brought people like Johnson, Fox and Davis in. This looks far more cliquey than that.
The AI in Trussbot has been told that strong leaders do down their enemies and has taken it far too literally.
(Which is odd, really. Because a proper pattern matching AI would notice that having internal enemies inside the tent stops the tent filling with urine.)
Theresa May governed like she'd won a 100 seat majority post GE2017.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
If it only works in countries that don't need it, then what is the point?
If it works then what harm is done by it? Mild inconveniencing?
It infantilises domestic politics.
Why does protecting certain things at a level above the nation state infantilize domestic politics?
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
I know nothing of her really, but I like the fact she is overweight and apparently a smoker and drinker. Rather like my GP friend who is fond of the booze and food and sports a spectacular gut.
It seems like Truss is making appointments like she overwhelmingly won the MPs and achieved a crushing victory in the members vote.
That's the same mistake Theresa May made.
Hardly. May brought people like Johnson, Fox and Davis in. This looks far more cliquey than that.
The AI in Trussbot has been told that strong leaders do down their enemies and has taken it far too literally.
(Which is odd, really. Because a proper pattern matching AI would notice that having internal enemies inside the tent stops the tent filling with urine.)
Theresa May governed like she'd won a 100 seat majority post GE2017.
It eventually ended her.
Theresa May refused to compromise with her MPs, numbers or reality.
All PMs need a Cabinet that agrees in collective responsibility.
Ah yes, figures from pressure groups, who can essentially prepare every press release ahead of time regardless of any government proposal, make for great policy advisers I bet, they really analyse things and don't just regurgitate the ideological themes they were formed to pressure people about.
I mean I knew it was coming, but in what world is “Suella Braverman promoted to Home Secretary” a sane world?
Is she less plausible than Jacqui Smith?
Jacque Smith wasn’t a horrible nasty anti rights individual ! Braverman is utterly odious , an absolutely horrible nasty woman .
Horses for courses.
For context, Lee Anderson MP recently said on radio he was going to ask in parliament why there was a shortage of bus drivers in his Ashfield constituency, but no shortage of bus drivers to transport illegal immigrants from Dover to four star hotels.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
No one gives a fuck, sorry. A load of Bulgarian judges telling ENGLAND what to do. The cheek
Big England = UK energy. Presumably your only objection to Bulgarian judges telling the Jocks, Taffs and Paddies what to do is that it’s entirely England’s job.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
Perhaps he was promised a train ride for every new language he learned
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
I think for Remainers it is a last shred of European rule over the UK that they are desperate to cling onto. Which is probably reason enough to get rid of it. But more importantly, all the arguments in favour of it seem to melt away when analysed, like snow in spring sun
You'd cut down every law in England to get at the Remainers? Do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Hmm, such familiar phrasing
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
They're inalienable rights protected by British courts and the British Parliament not the ECHR.
How did the ECHR protect "the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on" in Russia until February?
It didn't.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
You seem to think the ECHR makes a difference when it demonstrably doesn't.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
If I were a 1930s German jew I think I would rather the Convention applied than that it didn't. and I would continue to have that preference in the face of any number of shouty affirmations that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE YOU REALISE?
You don't need to look back to the 1930s anymore. Look at modern day Russia which was in the ECHR until February.
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well, if @SeanT had been using it, I would have no possible objection.
A teacher in Ireland has been jailed for refusing to use the pronoun 'they' to refer to a pupil who identified as neither male nor female.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the gender identity debate, 'they' is a plural noun and totally unsuitable for referring to a person.
Couldn't we come up with some vaguely acceptable compromise? E.g. 'shehe?' Or perhaps, to make it sound classier, borrow from Welsh and create 'fehi?'
Well that's my position exactly. And to those who say there are deep roots to the use of they as singular, well, there are deep roots to the use of 'gotten' too. I just cannot enjoy a sentence in which the word 'they'is used to refer to a single person. Interested in 'fehi' though - is that a gender neutral singular pronoun? How useful
It's a running together of the Welsh pronouns 'fe' (he) and 'hi' (pronounced he and meaning, amusingly, she).
It works better than combining the English ones, or at least I think it does.
And by adding an r or m you could easily replace 'his/hers' and 'him/her.'
I see. The thing is, quite aside from transsexuals, it would be very useful to have such a word. As you say, it used to be "he". But that was clearly always sub-optimal, that word doing a perfectly good job elsewhere. The problem is that any such words now carry connotations of 'look at me and how modern my sensibilities are'.
@MoonRabbit from last thread Thats what im waiting to see. The Truss plan and Starmer plan will probably have similar net effects in freezing but truss AIUI is for 2 years and slightly better protects lower end users whilst punishing higher end a bit more. The key however is businesses - Davey and Starmers freeze does nothing for them, if Truss does then her plan is superior regardless of raising 4% of the cost via a windfall tax or not. No point us all staying warm and there being no businesses left to utilise and work for Edit - no business measures and Truss can do one on day one
Horse Battery can make a fine socialist out of you yet, Woolie if you are selling us a socialist energy price freeze on PB 🤭
I don’t dislike the element of trying some compulsion of everyone saving energy, but is it enough compulsion and no inherent vice?
Labours policy would be the best value for money option for the nation, at shielding billpayers from the imminent 80% rise set for October, and another jump in January. The weakness of it though is the crisis will not be over by March 2023.
My main attack on Truss leaked proposal, and that is all it is, she hasn’t nailed herself to anything, is the need for windfall tax to pay for some it, not just fairness signalling, but the political element of getting much needed buy in from the public.
A windfall tax already exists though. I could see the logic of extending its duration as a signal only, not its scope. Labours policy leaves business to wither on the vine. Economically catastrophic for millions via job losses, services lost etc. It was too rushed, too limited in scope and too focussed on 'getting in the news'
And there lies the problem. Labour doesn't understand business. It never has (even during Blair premiership) and it never will. It sees business, whether large or small as a cash cow to tax as much as possible. It is why I would have struggled to vote Labour even if the Clown was still PM.
Okay boys, talk me through this Tory plan for helping business you are sure Liz has, and sure Lib Dems and labour have nothing.
How will this business energy crisis plan help businesses who have already now signed long deals on contract?
And We will hear about it on Thursday, alongside the details on the domestic users package, you are sure?
I know nothing of her really, but I like the fact she is overweight and apparently a smoker and drinker. Rather like my GP friend who is fond of the booze and food and sports a spectacular gut.
To an extent, she's only 10 years older than me but looks about 80 and I look about 30.
That sort of lifestyle can kill you. I hope she sorts it out.
It seems like Truss is making appointments like she overwhelmingly won the MPs and achieved a crushing victory in the members vote.
That's the same mistake Theresa May made.
Hardly. May brought people like Johnson, Fox and Davis in. This looks far more cliquey than that.
The AI in Trussbot has been told that strong leaders do down their enemies and has taken it far too literally.
(Which is odd, really. Because a proper pattern matching AI would notice that having internal enemies inside the tent stops the tent filling with urine.)
Theresa May governed like she'd won a 100 seat majority post GE2017.
It eventually ended her.
Yup. And May's mandate (wonky as it was) was at least from the nation. Truss doesn't even have that.
So- is this malfunctioning AI or "screw it, we're doomed 2024-34, let's have a laugh while we still can"?
Anyway, with two years, isn't Truss going to struggle to get much really controversial stuff through Parliament? The Lord's will likely hold up as much stuff as they can that's not in the manifesto.
All the food I’m eating in Portugal is better than almost any of the food I had in Italy. Unexpected
If you like bacalhau - and I do - then Portuguese food is great. If you don’t, then options for eating good food are rather limited.
it’s not the most varied cuisine, and I imagine I would be sick of it after several months, but for one week on the Alentejo coast these fairly simple but authentic, tasty, often delicious meals - all home made and home grown - are deeply, emotionally satisfying. It’s like eating at home with your mum who has about six recipes but does them well
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
English is only my tenth language or summat (I first arrived in this country in early 1976 not able to speak a single word of English - I was only four months old!), BUT:
Isn't the third person neuter singular "it"/"its"?
"It" carries a strong implication of non-human. Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
But surely the word "they" implies you have multiple personas! By all means possible, of course!
Well yes. That's very much my main problem with it. I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Looks like the UK will soon be withdrawing from the ECHR if the odious Braverman has her way . Patel replaced by an equally nasty individual .
It is surely the principal reason for her appointment. Stop the boats, get out of the ECHR, job done - it'll give endless chances for them to claim Labour want to give succour to criminals.
Unfortunately the general public don’t seem to realize how many rights have been secured by the ECHR . I’m hoping there’s enough backbench Tories who would rebel and stop that from happening . It wasn’t in the manifesto , the HOL should not back down if legislation gets there. Can you imagine the optics at this time for the UK to be withdrawing from the ECHR .
This is a good argument for leaving. These questions should be decided politically in the UK.
So you trust the Tories to protect your rights ? Good luck with that .
Translation: "I don't trust the UK to govern itself. It needs babysitting by continental Europeans."
You’re missing the point . Governments can change , and rights could then be at the whim of those . Why don’t you read up on the rights won by Brits because of the ECHR .
Name one.
And name how the ECHR protected that right in Putin's Russia.
Russia and Belarus are not signatories to the ECHR.
Russia was until February 2022.
And before that the court's judgments could not be enforced in Russia because the courts were not independent of the government. The ECHR only works in countries in which the rule of law applies.
So the ECtHR does not work then. It isn't a guarantor.
It is in a country where courts are independent of government influence.
In a country where courts are independent of government influence, then why do you need it? Is it just the urge to standardise? You can't face the idea that 'rights' might be contingent?
Yep, I am guilty of that. I believe the right to vote, to hold private property, to be protected from arbitrary imprisonment and so on are not contingent, but inalienable.
But given that Parliament is sovereign and can repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR is there really any "protection"?
Yes, because it takes political capital to do those things, and as we've seen not even all Tories are in favour, indeed they did not make it a manifesto committment even.
Adding procedural steps to ignore certain rights and rules does make governments which respect the rule of law stop and think.
Ripping it all out and starting from scratch to put some but not all of it back achieves little.
Braverman will be as bad as Patel. That is to say she will be appalling in every possible way. But she cannot be worse. And she will have far less real power than she had as Attorney General.
Coffey has a PhD in Chemistry and works like a trooper. She'll be fine.
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Kwasi is obviously very smart. On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
Comments
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567216374023438339?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
If the ECHR only works when its not needed, it doesn't work.
I agree with you, but I don’t mind being forced to be clear on the details.
Ultimately it's all going to end on tears... her's after Con are defeated by Lab at the next election methinks.
It now them 3.5% pa for the same term. And rising fast.
Debt interest costs on all this new borrowing isn't going to be small.
UK courts will implement UK law. In the absence of the ECHR. a democratically elected UK government could remove the right to private property, limit the franchise and imprison people without trial all through simple acts of Parliament that the independent courts would be obliged apply. You are seemingly OK with that, I am not. We disagree.
Following further calls from the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to resolve the impasse, the Secretary of State for Justice, David Lidington, published proposals in November 2017. These proposals are more limited in scope than those included in previous proposals. The main change proposed is to allow prisoners on Temporary Licence to vote. In December 2017 the Council of Europe welcomed the proposals, agreeing to them as an acceptable compromise that would address the criticisms raised by Hirst (No 2).
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7461/
All the food I’m eating in Portugal is better than almost any of the food I had in Italy. Unexpected
The AI in Trussbot has been told that strong leaders do down their enemies and has taken it far too literally.
(Which is odd, really. Because a proper pattern matching AI would notice that having internal enemies inside the tent stops the tent filling with urine.)
Theres your next 2 years.
As you say, if there were some terrible incident the PM would be a person who could command a majority in the Commons (whereas in the US, there needs to be a Presidential line of succession as it isn't about commanding a majority in Congress - plenty of Presidents don't).
So it's essentially something that's handy, but not really necessary, to have.
I'm not OK with any government doing that but I put my faith more in our voters preventing that, than failed and nobbled courts.
But people who are saying it is preventing us doing things cannot simultaneously argue it is ineffective so it is pointless.
The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in October 2000, made available, for the first time, a remedy for breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK courts. This means that, in appropriate cases, all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are tasked with deciding whether public bodies have acted compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, through the Human Rights Act, Parliament imposed on all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, a duty to interpret legislation so as that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, so far as it is possible to do so. If it is not possible to interpret legislation compatibly with the Convention, the courts can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" – which sends a clear steer to legislators that they should change the law to make it Convention-compliant. No UK court, including the Supreme Court, has the power to "strike down" legislation if it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court-and-europe.html
I deny that the ECtHR is worth any more than a wet paper bag.
But I do believe the government must probably take us out of the ECHR in some form or other
So still much more expensive based on long-term inflation expectations.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1567153688535306241?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
Kwarteng is an ex Kings Scholar and a brainbox. He'll be fine.
Suella Braverman is absolutely lovely in person but appears to have gone off the deep end in recent years. She'll almost certainly fail at Home Secretary, which is a horrible job anyway. For her political career to survive she has to stop the boats. I have no confidence.
Presumably your only objection to Bulgarian judges telling the Jocks, Taffs and Paddies what to do is that it’s entirely England’s job.
You will not agree with your own inflation argument when all the public sector workers are out on strike.
https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1567219640710955010?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
I never encountered it and I've been a member (on and off) for twenty years.
It eventually ended her.
Third person singular human gender non-specific is something we just don't have a word for!
Did you manage to cram nine more languages into your first four months?!
All PMs need a Cabinet that agrees in collective responsibility.
For context, Lee Anderson MP recently said on radio he was going to ask in parliament why there was a shortage of bus drivers in his Ashfield constituency, but no shortage of bus drivers to transport illegal immigrants from Dover to four star hotels.
That's where we are.
Please don’t send JRM to Business
Please don’t send JRM to Business
Not even @Carnyx or the Swede
Seriously. It was like choosing the perfect fly to catch a particular trout in the purling chalk stream of our political discourse
And you rose to the curious bubble
*pleased*
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime1
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Everybody knows why she's been appointed and what her task is, and why its important to the tories. See the latest red wall poll for reference.
The thing is, quite aside from transsexuals, it would be very useful to have such a word. As you say, it used to be "he". But that was clearly always sub-optimal, that word doing a perfectly good job elsewhere.
The problem is that any such words now carry connotations of 'look at me and how modern my sensibilities are'.
How will this business energy crisis plan help businesses who have already now signed long deals on contract?
And We will hear about it on Thursday, alongside the details on the domestic users package, you are sure?
Mr Dancer, the hour of your space cannon has come...
That sort of lifestyle can kill you. I hope she sorts it out.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1567221519427706880?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
So- is this malfunctioning AI or "screw it, we're doomed 2024-34, let's have a laugh while we still can"?
Anyway, with two years, isn't Truss going to struggle to get much really controversial stuff through Parliament? The Lord's will likely hold up as much stuff as they can that's not in the manifesto.
But wiki says (citaiton needed) he frequented a holiday home in NI as a child.
it’s not the most varied cuisine, and I imagine I would be sick of it after several months, but for one week on the Alentejo coast these fairly simple but authentic, tasty, often delicious meals - all home made and home grown - are deeply, emotionally satisfying. It’s like eating at home with your mum who has about six recipes but does them well
Also their local white wine is ace
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1567221739347640321?s=20&t=89sFpch1U0OCXe8MujhTww
Wake up and smell the Coffey.
On paper, he looks great.
The problem is that he seems to have been a dud in BEIS.
The fact that he has shagged the new PM (or vice versa) adds a interesting frisson perhaps not seems since James I.
I’ll be watching with interest.
I get the same feeling of discomfort hearing 'they' used for an individual that I do hearing 'less' used where 'fewer' would be better, or hearing 'disinterested' used to mean 'indifferent'.
Adding procedural steps to ignore certain rights and rules does make governments which respect the rule of law stop and think.
Ripping it all out and starting from scratch to put some but not all of it back achieves little.
As far as we know.