At Reform conference Farage confirms Reform will withdraw the UK from the ECHR if it wins the next GE, in contrast to Labour, the LDs and Badenoch's Tories.
Reform will also bring a private prosecution against Reynolds over his CV 'lies'
I think there are far more important issues at present
There are few more important issues than the ECHR. It is a key pillar in a system that undermines democratic Government. That is far more important, I'm sorry to say, than what happens in Ukraine, just as for Ukraine there are far more important issues than what happens in the UK.
So you want Britain to join the very exclusive club of non ECHR countries in Europe. A list that consists of just Russia and Belarus?
Yes.
And I certainly don't want our ability to govern ourselves decided by anything so grotesquely unserious as a consideration of which 'club' we'll be in, or who might look askance over their horn-rimmed spectacles at the British PM next time he goes to a conference. We have been governed that way for far too long - as a consequence we sign up to every bit of ludicrous shit that ballsier countries wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and we have the most expensive energy in the known world, amongst plenty of other real world consequences.
In what sense is the ECHR undemocratic or hampers our ability to govern? It's an institution that every democratically elected government has chosen to retain membership of.
It is undemocratic because it strikes down the decisions of elected governments with a public mandate without being democratically accountable itself. It is undemocratic because its living instrument doctrine enables the court to rule on any issue regardless of whether that issue is covered by the Convention. It hampers our ability to govern by providing a basis (not the basis, but a basis) for legal judgements that stray far into the province of Government policy. People have killed, raped and maimed having been allowed to remain in the UK because their deportations were blocked on the basis of the ECHR.
Like Brexit, I'm not under any illusion that leaving it will flick a switch and suddenly truth and justice will rush in like a flood, but it is a key prerequisite for recovering our democracy.
As usual you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The Human Rights Act (an act of Parliament) was passed by a sovereign Parliament and can be repealed by a sovereign Parliament. That Act is the primary thing that gives the ECHR force of law in the United Kingdom and can be repealed by a simple majority in Parliament. Your obsession with the ECHR being the cause of all our ills is just delusion.
The only immutable quality of our constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successors. That hasn't been changed by Blair or Brown or any of your bogeymen. Read a book rather than Twitter.
I really struggle with this, because I don't think you're stupid, but you do keep saying really stupid things.
If we repeal the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR no longer has the force of law in the UK, and we are therefore no longer subject to its rulings, we will effectively have left the convention. Once again, I'm arguing that we should do something, and you come in with your size 12s arguing that I'm talking shit because we can do the thing I'm advocating. Yes, I know we can do it - if we couldn't do it, I wouldn't be arguing for it would I?
We could avoid these embarrassing conversations if you engage your logical faculties (which I don't doubt you possess) before posting.
I would just say that if Starmer invites Trump to the UK to address both Houses of Parliament and stay with the King in Balmoral then it is just wrong on the timing, the cost, and the demonstrations that will happen
If he is to come to the UK, it needs to be in much calmer times and not at the height of division, anger and for some fear
At Reform conference Farage confirms Reform will withdraw the UK from the ECHR if it wins the next GE, in contrast to Labour, the LDs and Badenoch's Tories.
Reform will also bring a private prosecution against Reynolds over his CV 'lies'
I think there are far more important issues at present
There are few more important issues than the ECHR. It is a key pillar in a system that undermines democratic Government. That is far more important, I'm sorry to say, than what happens in Ukraine, just as for Ukraine there are far more important issues than what happens in the UK.
So you want Britain to join the very exclusive club of non ECHR countries in Europe. A list that consists of just Russia and Belarus?
Yes.
And I certainly don't want our ability to govern ourselves decided by anything so grotesquely unserious as a consideration of which 'club' we'll be in, or who might look askance over their horn-rimmed spectacles at the British PM next time he goes to a conference. We have been governed that way for far too long - as a consequence we sign up to every bit of ludicrous shit that ballsier countries wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and we have the most expensive energy in the known world, amongst plenty of other real world consequences.
In what sense is the ECHR undemocratic or hampers our ability to govern? It's an institution that every democratically elected government has chosen to retain membership of.
It is undemocratic because it strikes down the decisions of elected governments with a public mandate without being democratically accountable itself. It is undemocratic because its living instrument doctrine enables the court to rule on any issue regardless of whether that issue is covered by the Convention. It hampers our ability to govern by providing a basis (not the basis, but a basis) for legal judgements that stray far into the province of Government policy. People have killed, raped and maimed having been allowed to remain in the UK because their deportations were blocked on the basis of the ECHR.
Like Brexit, I'm not under any illusion that leaving it will flick a switch and suddenly truth and justice will rush in like a flood, but it is a key prerequisite for recovering our democracy.
In almost all the types of cases you quote the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the reason an action contravenes the Convention is because it actually breaks UK domestic law. The Convention is being used to point out our own failings to abide by our own laws. The answer to many of these strange rulings is to tighten up UK domestic law bia our own Parliament.
If we followed our own internal rules and laws there would be a lot fewer of these judgements citing the ECHR.
I would never have expected the United States of America to line up with North Korea to vote against essentially every liberal democracy
This is not business as usual, despite claims on here that it is.
Vlad owns me ?
"I don't want to explain it now, but it's sort of self evident I think," President Trump says in the Oval Office when asked about why the U.S. joined Russia to vote in voting against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine. https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1894084455427432642
Actually what did he mean? Or he just didn't know so had to bullshit?
I'm not even going to try to guess.
But notable that he's now talking about "tens of billions", rather than $350bn.
Also, this: British Prime Minister Starmer:
🇬🇧 Britain to send $5.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine.
❗️OPM formally notified agencies this afternoon that responding to the What did you do last week email is now voluntary and failure to respond won’t result in termination...@Hadas_Gold reports
I would never have expected the United States of America to line up with North Korea to vote against essentially every liberal democracy
This is not business as usual, despite claims on here that it is.
Vlad owns me ?
"I don't want to explain it now, but it's sort of self evident I think," President Trump says in the Oval Office when asked about why the U.S. joined Russia to vote in voting against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine. https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1894084455427432642
Actually what did he mean? Or he just didn't know so had to bullshit?
I'm not even going to try to guess.
But notable that he's now talking about "tens of billions", rather than $350bn.
Also, this: British Prime Minister Starmer:
🇬🇧 Britain to send $5.6 billion in military aid to Ukraine.
At Reform conference Farage confirms Reform will withdraw the UK from the ECHR if it wins the next GE, in contrast to Labour, the LDs and Badenoch's Tories.
Reform will also bring a private prosecution against Reynolds over his CV 'lies'
I think there are far more important issues at present
There are few more important issues than the ECHR. It is a key pillar in a system that undermines democratic Government. That is far more important, I'm sorry to say, than what happens in Ukraine, just as for Ukraine there are far more important issues than what happens in the UK.
So you want Britain to join the very exclusive club of non ECHR countries in Europe. A list that consists of just Russia and Belarus?
Yes.
And I certainly don't want our ability to govern ourselves decided by anything so grotesquely unserious as a consideration of which 'club' we'll be in, or who might look askance over their horn-rimmed spectacles at the British PM next time he goes to a conference. We have been governed that way for far too long - as a consequence we sign up to every bit of ludicrous shit that ballsier countries wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and we have the most expensive energy in the known world, amongst plenty of other real world consequences.
In what sense is the ECHR undemocratic or hampers our ability to govern? It's an institution that every democratically elected government has chosen to retain membership of.
It is undemocratic because it strikes down the decisions of elected governments with a public mandate without being democratically accountable itself. It is undemocratic because its living instrument doctrine enables the court to rule on any issue regardless of whether that issue is covered by the Convention. It hampers our ability to govern by providing a basis (not the basis, but a basis) for legal judgements that stray far into the province of Government policy. People have killed, raped and maimed having been allowed to remain in the UK because their deportations were blocked on the basis of the ECHR.
Like Brexit, I'm not under any illusion that leaving it will flick a switch and suddenly truth and justice will rush in like a flood, but it is a key prerequisite for recovering our democracy.
As usual you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The Human Rights Act (an act of Parliament) was passed by a sovereign Parliament and can be repealed by a sovereign Parliament. That Act is the primary thing that gives the ECHR force of law in the United Kingdom and can be repealed by a simple majority in Parliament. Your obsession with the ECHR being the cause of all our ills is just delusion.
The only immutable quality of our constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successors. That hasn't been changed by Blair or Brown or any of your bogeymen. Read a book rather than Twitter.
I really struggle with this, because I don't think you're stupid, but you do keep saying really stupid things.
If we repeal the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR no longer has the force of law in the UK, and we are therefore no longer subject to its rulings, we will effectively have left the convention. Once again, I'm arguing that we should do something, and you come in with your size 12s arguing that I'm talking shit because we can do the thing I'm advocating. Yes, I know we can do it - if we couldn't do it, I wouldn't be arguing for it would I?
We could avoid these embarrassing conversations if you engage your logical faculties (which I don't doubt you possess) before posting.
Our democratically elected Parliament voluntarily applied its rulings to this country, in certain circumstances. That is democratic and it is accountable. If Parliament didn't want the human rights set out in the European Convention to apply in certain circumstances, they could have elected to disapply them, but they didn't.
You might argue that the press would erupt with rage in those circumstances but that is precisely the point. It is supposed to be a big deal to disapply human rights. It is supposed to provoke a conversation as to whether a pressing need is worth the sacrifice of rights. That is a feature, not a bug.
Leaving the convention and replacing it with a "British Bill of Rights" or whatever will not fix our problems.
Parliament should pass primary legislation dealing with the deportation of criminal immigrants rather than wasting time fighting over the repeal of rights that apply to you and I. It is the wrong battle.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
At Reform conference Farage confirms Reform will withdraw the UK from the ECHR if it wins the next GE, in contrast to Labour, the LDs and Badenoch's Tories.
Reform will also bring a private prosecution against Reynolds over his CV 'lies'
I think there are far more important issues at present
There are few more important issues than the ECHR. It is a key pillar in a system that undermines democratic Government. That is far more important, I'm sorry to say, than what happens in Ukraine, just as for Ukraine there are far more important issues than what happens in the UK.
So you want Britain to join the very exclusive club of non ECHR countries in Europe. A list that consists of just Russia and Belarus?
Yes.
And I certainly don't want our ability to govern ourselves decided by anything so grotesquely unserious as a consideration of which 'club' we'll be in, or who might look askance over their horn-rimmed spectacles at the British PM next time he goes to a conference. We have been governed that way for far too long - as a consequence we sign up to every bit of ludicrous shit that ballsier countries wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and we have the most expensive energy in the known world, amongst plenty of other real world consequences.
In what sense is the ECHR undemocratic or hampers our ability to govern? It's an institution that every democratically elected government has chosen to retain membership of.
It is undemocratic because it strikes down the decisions of elected governments with a public mandate without being democratically accountable itself. It is undemocratic because its living instrument doctrine enables the court to rule on any issue regardless of whether that issue is covered by the Convention. It hampers our ability to govern by providing a basis (not the basis, but a basis) for legal judgements that stray far into the province of Government policy. People have killed, raped and maimed having been allowed to remain in the UK because their deportations were blocked on the basis of the ECHR.
Like Brexit, I'm not under any illusion that leaving it will flick a switch and suddenly truth and justice will rush in like a flood, but it is a key prerequisite for recovering our democracy.
In almost all the types of cases you quote the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the reason an action contravenes the Convention is because it actually breaks UK domestic law. The Convention is being used to point out our own failings to abide by our own laws. The answer to many of these strange rulings is to tighten up UK domestic law bia our own Parliament.
If we followed our own internal rules and laws there would be a lot fewer of these judgements citing the ECHR.
I haven't quoted any cases, but how was this judgement based on sloppy UK legislation?
A Pakistani father who was jailed for child sex offences escaped deportation because it would be “unduly harsh” on his children.
The unnamed father of two toddlers, who was granted anonymity by an immigration court, had been banned from living with his children since he was convicted of trying to get three “barely pubescent” girls to engage in sex and was jailed for 18 months.
However, a lower tribunal judge ruled that he should not be deported back to Pakistan because it would be “unduly harsh for the children to be without their father”.
The Home Office appealed against the decision and was backed by Judith Gleeson, an upper tribunal judge, who set aside the ruling, criticising it as “contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable”. The case is ongoing.
It is the latest case in which foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK by immigration tribunals because they have ruled that deportation would breach their rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
That's simply a judge's interpretation of the right to a family life isn't it? How do we tighten up UK law to stop that happening whilst remaining in the ECHR?
I would just say that if Starmer invites Trump to the UK to address both Houses of Parliament and stay with the King in Balmoral then it is just wrong on the timing, the cost, and the demonstrations that will happen
If he is to come to the UK, it needs to be in much calmer times and not at the height of division, anger and for some fear
Big G I'm really not sure I agree.
Much as I dislike it, we are currently in a pretty weak position strategically, as the world moves swiftly around us.
As a result we need to play Trump carefully. We absolutely need to stand up to him and to not be bullied. However, I think we can do that most effectively if we flatter him whilst doing so.
Give him the state visit, the meaningless pomp, and while he's here pull the wool over his eyes strategically.
Another tour de force from John Harris. No one else seems to write about the real politics of everyday lives out in the sticks like him:
"I know this much with certainty: that [lost tories in middle england] do not look at the chaos and disorder gripping the US and Trump’s torching of international norms as something to emulate, but instead feel a mounting anxiety."
“[LibDems] don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice,” [Kemi Badenoch] went on, as if niceness was always to be avoided. “A typical Liberal Democrat will be somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And, you know, the people in the community like them. They are like, ‘Fix the church roof, you should be a member of parliament.’”
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
I would just say that if Starmer invites Trump to the UK to address both Houses of Parliament and stay with the King in Balmoral then it is just wrong on the timing, the cost, and the demonstrations that will happen
If he is to come to the UK, it needs to be in much calmer times and not at the height of division, anger and for some fear
Big G I'm really not sure I agree.
Much as I dislike it, we are currently in a pretty weak position strategically, as the world moves swiftly around us.
As a result we need to play Trump carefully. We absolutely need to stand up to him and to not be bullied. However, I think we can do that most effectively if we flatter him whilst doing so.
Give him the state visit, the meaningless pomp, and while he's here pull the wool over his eyes strategically.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
So those elderly people who don’t have sufficient savings / private income to live comfortably. You going to send them down pit?
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
Another tour de force from John Harris. No one else seems to write about the real politics of everyday lives out in the sticks like him:
"I know this much with certainty: that [lost tories in middle england] do not look at the chaos and disorder gripping the US and Trump’s torching of international norms as something to emulate, but instead feel a mounting anxiety."
“[LibDems] don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice,” [Kemi Badenoch] went on, as if niceness was always to be avoided. “A typical Liberal Democrat will be somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And, you know, the people in the community like them. They are like, ‘Fix the church roof, you should be a member of parliament.’”
'These parts of England are assuredly modern, and often more ethnically diverse than they used to be. They are often not quite as affluent as their reputation suggests, but still full of people who are mindful of the health of the economy. Those voters would be in the market for a centre-right party that emphasised the wonders of property ownership and low taxes, and pledged to back the interests of business. What they find repellent, in my experience, is the Tory turn into fanaticism, and the sense that Farage – and now Trump – are pulling the strings. Needless to say, they do not get on their commuter trains every morning and chat animatedly about such hard-right talking-points as “cultural Marxism”, being trapped in 15-minute cities, and the need to have more kids so as to preserve Judeo-Christian culture. In my experience, almost nobody in Britain does.'
And that last comment leaves me with the reflection - [edit] it sums up our PB rightwingers so neatly by reverse.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
So you think a Government is going to cut the payout to current public sector pensioners by 40%.
No Government is that stupid and that's before they lose every court case that sort of cut would create.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Simple answer - set how much of GDP the country is willing to pay on sickness benefit and that's the limit.
If the number of sick claimants increases then the individual payments fall.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
Not as far as I am aware. The Supreme Court said Rwanda was not a safe country and then Parliament passed an Act saying it was, afterwards. In fact that Act dissaplied vast swathes of the Human Rights Act, just as I am suggesting they can do.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
Not as far as I am aware. The Supreme Court said Rwanda was not a safe country and then Parliament passed an Act saying it was, afterwards. In fact that Act dissaplied vast swathes of the Human Rights Act, just as I am suggesting they can do.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
So you think a Government is going to cut the payout to current public sector pensioners by 40%.
No Government is that stupid and that's before they lose every court case that sort of cut would create.
Parliament is sovereign, it can literally pass a law to invalidate any court judgements but it would need to accept the unpopularity of doing so which has tended to stop the government from doing so. If the government wants to raise money quickly then it is a rich target that will actually yield a lot of money.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
Not as far as I am aware. The Supreme Court said Rwanda was not a safe country and then Parliament passed an Act saying it was, afterwards. In fact that Act dissaplied vast swathes of the Human Rights Act, just as I am suggesting they can do.
And yet no deportations to Rwanda took place due to continuing lawfare from human rights lawyers. Why would any attempt to do the same for deportations be any different?
I would just say that if Starmer invites Trump to the UK to address both Houses of Parliament and stay with the King in Balmoral then it is just wrong on the timing, the cost, and the demonstrations that will happen
If he is to come to the UK, it needs to be in much calmer times and not at the height of division, anger and for some fear
Big G I'm really not sure I agree.
Much as I dislike it, we are currently in a pretty weak position strategically, as the world moves swiftly around us.
As a result we need to play Trump carefully. We absolutely need to stand up to him and to not be bullied. However, I think we can do that most effectively if we flatter him whilst doing so.
Give him the state visit, the meaningless pomp, and while he's here pull the wool over his eyes strategically.
Not just now when tempers are frayed but if he achieves a deal then a state visit would be ok
Another tour de force from John Harris. No one else seems to write about the real politics of everyday lives out in the sticks like him:
"I know this much with certainty: that [lost tories in middle england] do not look at the chaos and disorder gripping the US and Trump’s torching of international norms as something to emulate, but instead feel a mounting anxiety."
“[LibDems] don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice,” [Kemi Badenoch] went on, as if niceness was always to be avoided. “A typical Liberal Democrat will be somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And, you know, the people in the community like them. They are like, ‘Fix the church roof, you should be a member of parliament.’”
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
So those elderly people who don’t have sufficient savings / private income to live comfortably. You going to send them down pit?
Well I'd start by ensuring those who do have sufficient savings / private income / DB / rental yields etc are paying the same rate of net income tax as someone who is earning the same amount of money via PAYE including both National Insurance and Graduate Tax.
I'd follow up by capping state pension rises to no more than income rises. If incomes are rising fast then fine pensions can keep up, but if incomes are frozen at 1% nominal increases (real term cuts) then pensioners should face exactly the same income rise as those working for a living.
Those working for their income should NEVER be taking home less than those who are not.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
So you think a Government is going to cut the payout to current public sector pensioners by 40%.
No Government is that stupid and that's before they lose every court case that sort of cut would create.
Parliament is sovereign, it can literally pass a law to invalidate any court judgements but it would need to accept the unpopularity of doing so which has tended to stop the government from doing so. If the government wants to raise money quickly then it is a rich target that will actually yield a lot of money.
And consign this Labour Government to being the last Labour Government with polling at the next election that would make the Tories last year look a good result..
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
Like yourself, I personally prefer the English concept of liberty and the common law (as an English qualified solicitor, that would be natural). However, the fact that the UK constitution contains no "higher laws" makes it is very easy for Parliament to sweep away liberty, in one afternoon if necessary, regardless of how long it has evolved. The Human Rights Act at least makes it more obvious when Parliament is sweeping away some rights, in an age where headlines are important. That is a feature, not a bug, and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing in of itself.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
Not as far as I am aware. The Supreme Court said Rwanda was not a safe country and then Parliament passed an Act saying it was, afterwards. In fact that Act dissaplied vast swathes of the Human Rights Act, just as I am suggesting they can do.
And yet no deportations to Rwanda took place due to continuing lawfare from human rights lawyers. Why would any attempt to do the same for deportations be any different?
At Reform conference Farage confirms Reform will withdraw the UK from the ECHR if it wins the next GE, in contrast to Labour, the LDs and Badenoch's Tories.
Reform will also bring a private prosecution against Reynolds over his CV 'lies'
I think there are far more important issues at present
There are few more important issues than the ECHR. It is a key pillar in a system that undermines democratic Government. That is far more important, I'm sorry to say, than what happens in Ukraine, just as for Ukraine there are far more important issues than what happens in the UK.
So you want Britain to join the very exclusive club of non ECHR countries in Europe. A list that consists of just Russia and Belarus?
Yes.
And I certainly don't want our ability to govern ourselves decided by anything so grotesquely unserious as a consideration of which 'club' we'll be in, or who might look askance over their horn-rimmed spectacles at the British PM next time he goes to a conference. We have been governed that way for far too long - as a consequence we sign up to every bit of ludicrous shit that ballsier countries wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and we have the most expensive energy in the known world, amongst plenty of other real world consequences.
In what sense is the ECHR undemocratic or hampers our ability to govern? It's an institution that every democratically elected government has chosen to retain membership of.
It is undemocratic because it strikes down the decisions of elected governments with a public mandate without being democratically accountable itself. It is undemocratic because its living instrument doctrine enables the court to rule on any issue regardless of whether that issue is covered by the Convention. It hampers our ability to govern by providing a basis (not the basis, but a basis) for legal judgements that stray far into the province of Government policy. People have killed, raped and maimed having been allowed to remain in the UK because their deportations were blocked on the basis of the ECHR.
Like Brexit, I'm not under any illusion that leaving it will flick a switch and suddenly truth and justice will rush in like a flood, but it is a key prerequisite for recovering our democracy.
As usual you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The Human Rights Act (an act of Parliament) was passed by a sovereign Parliament and can be repealed by a sovereign Parliament. That Act is the primary thing that gives the ECHR force of law in the United Kingdom and can be repealed by a simple majority in Parliament. Your obsession with the ECHR being the cause of all our ills is just delusion.
The only immutable quality of our constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind its successors. That hasn't been changed by Blair or Brown or any of your bogeymen. Read a book rather than Twitter.
I really struggle with this, because I don't think you're stupid, but you do keep saying really stupid things.
If we repeal the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR no longer has the force of law in the UK, and we are therefore no longer subject to its rulings, we will effectively have left the convention. Once again, I'm arguing that we should do something, and you come in with your size 12s arguing that I'm talking shit because we can do the thing I'm advocating. Yes, I know we can do it - if we couldn't do it, I wouldn't be arguing for it would I?
We could avoid these embarrassing conversations if you engage your logical faculties (which I don't doubt you possess) before posting.
No. We would go back to the pre-1998 position. The Convention would not have direct effect in UK courts but the ECHR would still be able to give relief (e.g McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (1995) and many other Troubles era judgments). To leave the Convention you have to, well, leave it. Trouble with that is that to leave that treaty involves picking apart others, the Good Friday agreement notably, which requires the Convention to be part of the law of NI, where the British State has shown itself to require external restraint in its actions against citizens.
One good thing about leaving the Convention, though, is that there would be nothing preventing Parliament from legislating to expropriate so-called “private” property without compensation - Art 1, Protocol 1 “ Everyone has the right to own property and use its possessions. No-one shall be deprived of his property unless public necessity so demands. If so, the State must guarantee fair compensation.”
As a good socialist, I’m sure you’re with me that the accumulation of capital is an evil that that part of the hopelessly bourgeois ECHR does too much to protect. Parliament must have the right to bleed the parasitic capitalist class.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
So those elderly people who don’t have sufficient savings / private income to live comfortably. You going to send them down pit?
Well I'd start by ensuring those who do have sufficient savings / private income / DB / rental yields etc are paying the same rate of net income tax as someone who is earning the same amount of money via PAYE including both National Insurance and Graduate Tax.
I'd follow up by capping state pension rises to no more than income rises. If incomes are rising fast then fine pensions can keep up, but if incomes are frozen at 1% nominal increases (real term cuts) then pensioners should face exactly the same income rise as those working for a living.
Those working for their income should NEVER be taking home less than those who are not.
So when you said you would cut pensions to fund Défense you didn’t actually *mean* you’d cut pension to fund Défense?
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
A very interesting question.
Liberty is such a slippery concept, though. I'm completely with you that one of the most important aims of the constitution is to prevent state interference in that which should be the purview of the individual, family, community etc. And this prevention needs constant watchfulness.
But whose liberty? How does eg the weakening of union power (which is something I am guessing you would advocate) impact on the worker who lacks economic power and so is exploited through eg a zero hours contract?
Are they not entitled to liberty as much as you or I? We have little choice but to operate within a capitalist system and within that system I find it very hard to justify defining liberty in just a negative way i.e. freedom from interference. Instead I think it also needs to be defined positively i.e. freedom to flourish by being protected from exploitation.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
Not as far as I am aware. The Supreme Court said Rwanda was not a safe country and then Parliament passed an Act saying it was, afterwards. In fact that Act dissaplied vast swathes of the Human Rights Act, just as I am suggesting they can do.
And yet no deportations to Rwanda took place due to continuing lawfare from human rights lawyers. Why would any attempt to do the same for deportations be any different?
I thought that there were deportations to Rwanda?
No attempt was made to deport any more after the Safety of Rwanda Act. Remember that hardliners like Suella and Jenrick had already said the Act was full of holes. That never ended up being put to the test because Sunak called the election.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court judgement striking the Rwanda plan down in 2023 talked of 'the general conventions of international law' (or something similar), effectively meaning that "you can legislate however you like - you can even leave the ECHR, and we're still not going to let you do this." - you may think that undermines my argument, but remember I say that leaving the ECHR is just a beginning. Root and branch reform is needed in my opinion.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
Didn't the last government attempt to do this with Rwanda and they got blocked by the courts.
Not as far as I am aware. The Supreme Court said Rwanda was not a safe country and then Parliament passed an Act saying it was, afterwards. In fact that Act dissaplied vast swathes of the Human Rights Act, just as I am suggesting they can do.
And yet no deportations to Rwanda took place due to continuing lawfare from human rights lawyers. Why would any attempt to do the same for deportations be any different?
I thought that there were deportations to Rwanda?
No attempt was made to deport any more after the Safety of Rwanda Act. Remember that hardliners like Suella and Jenrick had already said the Act was full of holes. That never ended up being put to the test because Sunak called the election.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court judgement striking the Rwanda plan down in 2023 talked of 'the general conventions of international law' (or something similar), effectively meaning that "you can legislate however you like - you can even leave the ECHR, and we're still not going to let you do this." - you may think that undermines my argument, but remember I say that leaving the ECHR is just a beginning. Root and branch reform is needed in my opinion.
I wouldn't support the Supreme Court trying to strike down clear primary legislation, and I don't think they would anyway. Obiter remarks in judgments like this are often curious but amount to nothing. British legal history is littered with them.
🚨 NEW: A reporter asked Defense Secretary Hegseth about appointing an "underqualified retired lieutenant general" as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An angry Hegseth responded: "I'm going to choose to reject your unqualified question."
Trump’s pick is underqualified by standard criteria, as he’ll need a waiver just to be promoted to the position.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
A very interesting question.
Liberty is such a slippery concept, though. I'm completely with you that one of the most important aims of the constitution is to prevent state interference in that which should be the purview of the individual, family, community etc. And this prevention needs constant watchfulness.
But whose liberty? How does eg the weakening of union power (which is something I am guessing you would advocate) impact on the worker who lacks economic power and so is exploited through eg a zero hours contract?
Are they not entitled to liberty as much as you or I? We have little choice but to operate within a capitalist system and within that system I find it very hard to justify defining liberty in just a negative way i.e. freedom from interference. Instead I think it also needs to be defined positively i.e. freedom to flourish by being protected from exploitation.
It's an aside not an answer, but I think our proud habit of jaywalking in this country is one of the few remnants of English/British liberty. If it's safe to cross the road, we will ruddy well cross it.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
As I mentioned last week, to double defence spending to around 4% of GDP would cost the UK about £45 billion. It is estimated that cancelling the triple lock would save around between £8 and £10 billion a year. Making working pensioners pay NI on their pay would make around £1.5 billion a year. So those two measures lone would get you about 25% of your additional defence spending.
At Reform conference Farage confirms Reform will withdraw the UK from the ECHR if it wins the next GE, in contrast to Labour, the LDs and Badenoch's Tories.
Reform will also bring a private prosecution against Reynolds over his CV 'lies'
I think there are far more important issues at present
There are few more important issues than the ECHR. It is a key pillar in a system that undermines democratic Government. That is far more important, I'm sorry to say, than what happens in Ukraine, just as for Ukraine there are far more important issues than what happens in the UK.
So you want Britain to join the very exclusive club of non ECHR countries in Europe. A list that consists of just Russia and Belarus?
Yes.
And I certainly don't want our ability to govern ourselves decided by anything so grotesquely unserious as a consideration of which 'club' we'll be in, or who might look askance over their horn-rimmed spectacles at the British PM next time he goes to a conference. We have been governed that way for far too long - as a consequence we sign up to every bit of ludicrous shit that ballsier countries wouldn't touch with a barge pole, and we have the most expensive energy in the known world, amongst plenty of other real world consequences.
In what sense is the ECHR undemocratic or hampers our ability to govern? It's an institution that every democratically elected government has chosen to retain membership of.
It is undemocratic because it strikes down the decisions of elected governments with a public mandate without being democratically accountable itself. It is undemocratic because its living instrument doctrine enables the court to rule on any issue regardless of whether that issue is covered by the Convention. It hampers our ability to govern by providing a basis (not the basis, but a basis) for legal judgements that stray far into the province of Government policy. People have killed, raped and maimed having been allowed to remain in the UK because their deportations were blocked on the basis of the ECHR.
Like Brexit, I'm not under any illusion that leaving it will flick a switch and suddenly truth and justice will rush in like a flood, but it is a key prerequisite for recovering our democracy.
In almost all the types of cases you quote the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the reason an action contravenes the Convention is because it actually breaks UK domestic law. The Convention is being used to point out our own failings to abide by our own laws. The answer to many of these strange rulings is to tighten up UK domestic law bia our own Parliament.
If we followed our own internal rules and laws there would be a lot fewer of these judgements citing the ECHR.
I haven't quoted any cases, but how was this judgement based on sloppy UK legislation?
A Pakistani father who was jailed for child sex offences escaped deportation because it would be “unduly harsh” on his children.
The unnamed father of two toddlers, who was granted anonymity by an immigration court, had been banned from living with his children since he was convicted of trying to get three “barely pubescent” girls to engage in sex and was jailed for 18 months.
However, a lower tribunal judge ruled that he should not be deported back to Pakistan because it would be “unduly harsh for the children to be without their father”.
The Home Office appealed against the decision and was backed by Judith Gleeson, an upper tribunal judge, who set aside the ruling, criticising it as “contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable”. The case is ongoing.
It is the latest case in which foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK by immigration tribunals because they have ruled that deportation would breach their rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
That's simply a judge's interpretation of the right to a family life isn't it? How do we tighten up UK law to stop that happening whilst remaining in the ECHR?
I am genuinely interested in how we tighten legislation to stop these judgements happening, because they seem pretty much based on the ECHR to me.
The key to this is the interaction of the ECHR and the domestic law. Basically, the HRA requires the courts to interpret the statute in a way that is compatible with Convention rights. So, if the Convention is engaged the court has to interpret the legislation in that way if it can be done, even if that is not what Parliament actually meant.
The reason that there are these preliminary questions of whether the Convention is engaged or not is whether or not this somewhat unique interpretation obligation comes into play or not. As this is the argument it sounds like a "human rights" case but in fact the real question is how the statute is to be interpreted.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
So you think a Government is going to cut the payout to current public sector pensioners by 40%.
No Government is that stupid and that's before they lose every court case that sort of cut would create.
Parliament is sovereign, it can literally pass a law to invalidate any court judgements but it would need to accept the unpopularity of doing so which has tended to stop the government from doing so. If the government wants to raise money quickly then it is a rich target that will actually yield a lot of money.
And consign this Labour Government to being the last Labour Government with polling at the next election that would make the Tories last year look a good result..
It simply isn't going to happen..
And, although I can see the attraction, it's not obvious that it helps in any but the shortest of short terms.
If the government starts dicking around with pensions that have been built up, then I will be after the money up front, thank you.
As with a lot of things, it might have been better had previous generations not got a load of staff relatively cheaply at the time, by making too-generous promises about the future. But they did, and we are where we are.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
Actually, it should probably legislate far, far less than it has done since 1997.
The loopholes are created by adding layer of laws upon existing laws, without properly considering the implications.
🚨 NEW: A reporter asked Defense Secretary Hegseth about appointing an "underqualified retired lieutenant general" as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An angry Hegseth responded: "I'm going to choose to reject your unqualified question."
Trump’s pick is underqualified by standard criteria, as he’ll need a waiver just to be promoted to the position.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
As I mentioned last week, to double defence spending to around 4% of GDP would cost the UK about £45 billion. It is estimated that cancelling the triple lock would save around between £8 and £10 billion a year. Making working pensioners pay NI on their pay would make around £1.5 billion a year. So those two measures lone would get you about 25% of your additional defence spending.
Increase the state pension age:
60-65 +6 months 50-59 +1 year 40-49 +1.5 years under 40 +2 years
Not an immediate cash flow benefit but a big future saving.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
So you think a Government is going to cut the payout to current public sector pensioners by 40%.
No Government is that stupid and that's before they lose every court case that sort of cut would create.
Parliament is sovereign, it can literally pass a law to invalidate any court judgements but it would need to accept the unpopularity of doing so which has tended to stop the government from doing so. If the government wants to raise money quickly then it is a rich target that will actually yield a lot of money.
And consign this Labour Government to being the last Labour Government with polling at the next election that would make the Tories last year look a good result..
It simply isn't going to happen..
And, although I can see the attraction, it's not obvious that it helps in any but the shortest of short terms.
If the government starts dicking around with pensions that have been built up, then I will be after the money up front, thank you.
As with a lot of things, it might have been better had previous generations not got a load of staff relatively cheaply at the time, by making too-generous promises about the future. But they did, and we are where we are.
They weren't relatively cheap to the staff themselves. The Treasury made damn sure that public sector wages were actuarially reduced to compensate, by comparison with the private sector. I remember reading the stuff about that when applying for one job.
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
Actually, it should probably legislate far, far less than it has done since 1997.
The loopholes are created by adding layer of laws upon existing laws, without properly considering the implications.
Well yes, I agree with that. Less is more.
Tons of secondary legislation also is a blight - more so in a commercial context, which is my area.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
🚨 NEW: A reporter asked Defense Secretary Hegseth about appointing an "underqualified retired lieutenant general" as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An angry Hegseth responded: "I'm going to choose to reject your unqualified question."
Trump’s pick is underqualified by standard criteria, as he’ll need a waiver just to be promoted to the position.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
A very interesting question.
Liberty is such a slippery concept, though. I'm completely with you that one of the most important aims of the constitution is to prevent state interference in that which should be the purview of the individual, family, community etc. And this prevention needs constant watchfulness.
But whose liberty? How does eg the weakening of union power (which is something I am guessing you would advocate) impact on the worker who lacks economic power and so is exploited through eg a zero hours contract?
Are they not entitled to liberty as much as you or I? We have little choice but to operate within a capitalist system and within that system I find it very hard to justify defining liberty in just a negative way i.e. freedom from interference. Instead I think it also needs to be defined positively i.e. freedom to flourish by being protected from exploitation.
It's an aside not an answer, but I think our proud habit of jaywalking in this country is one of the few remnants of English/British liberty. If it's safe to cross the road, we will ruddy well cross it.
difficult to jaywalk in England, as it's usually legal for pedestrians to cross the road. except on motorways, which I don't recommend no matter how proud it makes you feel.
🚨 NEW: A reporter asked Defense Secretary Hegseth about appointing an "underqualified retired lieutenant general" as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An angry Hegseth responded: "I'm going to choose to reject your unqualified question."
Trump’s pick is underqualified by standard criteria, as he’ll need a waiver just to be promoted to the position.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
I think it’s use is for cases where the law is being stretched extended into topics it was not intended to cover. We see this a bit with concerns over the assisted dying bill. And people worry about giving the state more powers to snoop on citizens as the reasons it happens and who gets to do it will inevitably grow.
@darrengrimes_ · 8h Back then we didn’t have much. Life was hard, work was dangerous and times were tough. But my God at least we had each other — the country was united. In my lifetime that has been thoroughly lost.
Possibly the most disunited post-war England had ever been, then or since.
Mm. He may be thinking of the Falklands. But against that one can put the poll tax.
He wasn't born for another ten years.
He is a Blair Baby.
Sure. I was just mulling over Viewcode's remarks about the period before Mr Grimes', erm, zeroth birthday - a period which Mr Grimes was claiming was when the 'country' was united.
In fact, what does he mean by 'country', given the Troubles in NI, come to think of it? Which Mr Blair and his government resolved, if in their own way.
I would never have expected the United States of America to line up with North Korea to vote against essentially every liberal democracy
This is not business as usual, despite claims on here that it is.
tbf the USA has a long history of being almost on its own on various issues, and not caring about the company it finds itself keeping there.
It also has a long history of flakiness with treaties it has actually signed. The US signed hundreds of treaties with Native American nations in the first hundred years of its existence. Many of them weren't honoured. And many of the ones that were, were only signed under coercion or blackmail by the US.
I see the US and North Korea have voted on the same side five times at the UN as of 2019, so it's not unheard of. But I suspect these weren't situations where the US and North Korea were together almost alone.
James Matthews of Sky reporting on Trump Macron meeting says it is all about change, radical change, change that is happening too quickly for Macron inside that meeting and Starmer when he comes here on Thursday, Europe and the world more broadly
Matthews addresses the reality that so many are really struggling to comprehend
When faced with rapid change that is bad - and Trump pulling support from Ukraine, threatening to annex Greenland and Panama and throwing around the threat of blanket tariffs are indeed bad - you can either go with it, or you can resist and fight back. Or you stand like a rabbit in the headlights.
Quite a lot of people seem to think that the only option is to get with the programme. If they don’t, they are either in denial or have TDS. No. Standing like a rabbit in the headlights isn’t a good idea, but fighting back absolutely is.
You can only fight back if you have strength and at present Europe has never looked weaker and that is worrying
Indeed Trump affirmed his so called reciprocal tariffs on Europe with Macron beside him
A lot of hard thinking is needed across Europe and the ROW, but it really does look as if Trump is welcoming Putin back into the world through the lens of his business interests and not geo political stability with untold consequences
We are in a very scary place and it is not going to become less scary anytime soon
Merz actually looked strong with his win last night, certainly more so than Scholz has, as does Macron who rang rings around Trump at their interview today. Both focused on developing European military forces and continuing to fund Ukraine. Starmer is a wet blanket but then Trump just treats the UK as a pet now, his main rivals are the EU and China, his main allies Israel, Russia and Argentina.
Trump's US is therefore heading for a tariff war with China as well as the EU, it might be able to win a trade war against one of the other top 3 global economies but both?
I think Starmer has a big call to make. Whether, in the face of Trump's perfidy, to continue to try to be a "bridge" or try another approach.
I can't help feeling that a tough, even bloody-minded, united stance by UK, France, Germany and Canada might be a better option. The Canadians hate him anyway. We now have a new more decisive German chancellor. Macron is no pushover and the French, anyhow, don't do fealty to the Americans. Escalate. Swagger. Face up to him. Trump is a bully - return the favour.
Whatever he decides, Starmer will be trailing along behind Trump or Macron, Merz and even Trudeau or Carney.
We are now largely also rans in the top tier of global politics
Wtf is wrong with everyone. Canada, UK, Germany, France together can cause a heck of stink if we bother to.
Russia got bogged down by Ukraine (lol) and the Americans have gone nuts. Let's assert some calm steely sobriety.
I agree, explain which form or welfare that the UK, Germany, France and Canada should cut to fund this new found "steely sobriety" if you can't then it's all words.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Pensions.
Next question please.
Even cancelling the triple lock won't get us to 3% for defence, ending early retirement in the public sector and a 40% haircut on current and future DB pensions might though.
As I mentioned last week, to double defence spending to around 4% of GDP would cost the UK about £45 billion. It is estimated that cancelling the triple lock would save around between £8 and £10 billion a year. Making working pensioners pay NI on their pay would make around £1.5 billion a year. So those two measures lone would get you about 25% of your additional defence spending.
You get the £10 billion saving by winding the basic state pension back to what it would have been had the triple lock never happened- so 2011/12 pension levels plus either inflation or earnings since (doesn't matter much which, they both come out pretty similar).
It would mean cutting the state pension by £15 a week, or £750 a year. Even if there is a cold war on, good luck with that.
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
I think it’s use is for cases where the law is being stretched extended into topics it was not intended to cover. We see this a bit with concerns over the assisted dying bill. And people worry about giving the state more powers to snoop on citizens as the reasons it happens and who gets to do it will inevitably grow.
You do realise that is the entire benefit of the English common law? The judge-created law that was the bedrock of the Britain that created an empire? The bedrock of the golden era many wish to go back to?
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
I think it’s use is for cases where the law is being stretched extended into topics it was not intended to cover. We see this a bit with concerns over the assisted dying bill. And people worry about giving the state more powers to snoop on citizens as the reasons it happens and who gets to do it will inevitably grow.
You do realise that is the entire benefit of the English common law? The judge-created law that was the bedrock of the Britain that created an empire? The bedrock of the golden era many wish to go back to?
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
I think it’s use is for cases where the law is being stretched extended into topics it was not intended to cover. We see this a bit with concerns over the assisted dying bill. And people worry about giving the state more powers to snoop on citizens as the reasons it happens and who gets to do it will inevitably grow.
You do realise that is the entire benefit of the English common law? The judge-created law that was the bedrock of the Britain that created an empire? The bedrock of the golden era many wish to go back to?
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
I think it’s use is for cases where the law is being stretched extended into topics it was not intended to cover. We see this a bit with concerns over the assisted dying bill. And people worry about giving the state more powers to snoop on citizens as the reasons it happens and who gets to do it will inevitably grow.
You do realise that is the entire benefit of the English common law? The judge-created law that was the bedrock of the Britain that created an empire? The bedrock of the golden era many wish to go back to?
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
A very interesting question.
Liberty is such a slippery concept, though. I'm completely with you that one of the most important aims of the constitution is to prevent state interference in that which should be the purview of the individual, family, community etc. And this prevention needs constant watchfulness.
But whose liberty? How does eg the weakening of union power (which is something I am guessing you would advocate) impact on the worker who lacks economic power and so is exploited through eg a zero hours contract?
Are they not entitled to liberty as much as you or I? We have little choice but to operate within a capitalist system and within that system I find it very hard to justify defining liberty in just a negative way i.e. freedom from interference. Instead I think it also needs to be defined positively i.e. freedom to flourish by being protected from exploitation.
It's an aside not an answer, but I think our proud habit of jaywalking in this country is one of the few remnants of English/British liberty. If it's safe to cross the road, we will ruddy well cross it.
difficult to jaywalk in England, as it's usually legal for pedestrians to cross the road. except on motorways, which I don't recommend no matter how proud it makes you feel.
I would just say that if Starmer invites Trump to the UK to address both Houses of Parliament and stay with the King in Balmoral then it is just wrong on the timing, the cost, and the demonstrations that will happen
If he is to come to the UK, it needs to be in much calmer times and not at the height of division, anger and for some fear
Big G I'm really not sure I agree.
Much as I dislike it, we are currently in a pretty weak position strategically, as the world moves swiftly around us.
As a result we need to play Trump carefully. We absolutely need to stand up to him and to not be bullied. However, I think we can do that most effectively if we flatter him whilst doing so.
Give him the state visit, the meaningless pomp, and while he's here pull the wool over his eyes strategically.
Sadly, I think that's right.
But make no concessions to him, such as accepting the importation of substandard food.
There is a great film about this. But regardless, there is nothing new about any of this.
More recent examples appear to be more about politics than the law. See the mad fox killers endless anti Tory campaigns.
Well you'll never stop lawyers suing people (or the government). That is another traditional concept in our legal and political system. Maybe the fact the judiciary is so underfunded and therefore cannot deal with cases quickly and efficiently is the cause of modern malaise. I don't know.
@Luckyguy1983 Parliament can simply pass primary legislation to instruct the courts on how to deal with these situations without taking away rights from everyone else. That is the point of Parliament and is literally their job. Taking a sledgehammer to a screw is not the answer to everything.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
There is a deeper question here, which I'll admit that I don't have the knowledge to pursue, which is the concept of European 'rights' granted by the state, and the English concept of liberty, which is the right not to be interfered with at all unless you're committing a crime. We had a very highly evolved and layered constitution in the UK, that gave British people liberty. Taking away that liberty but tacking on some 'human rights' is broadly what I feel has happened to our constitution in recent decades, and I don't feel it's a positive development.
A very interesting question.
Liberty is such a slippery concept, though. I'm completely with you that one of the most important aims of the constitution is to prevent state interference in that which should be the purview of the individual, family, community etc. And this prevention needs constant watchfulness.
But whose liberty? How does eg the weakening of union power (which is something I am guessing you would advocate) impact on the worker who lacks economic power and so is exploited through eg a zero hours contract?
Are they not entitled to liberty as much as you or I? We have little choice but to operate within a capitalist system and within that system I find it very hard to justify defining liberty in just a negative way i.e. freedom from interference. Instead I think it also needs to be defined positively i.e. freedom to flourish by being protected from exploitation.
It's an aside not an answer, but I think our pproud habit of jaywalking in this country is one of the few remnants of English/British liberty. If it's safe to cross the road, we will ruddy well cross it.
I discovered the other day that it is *illegal* in New Jersey to swim in the ocean after Labor Day
Every time lawyers block government policy it probably increases support for populists.
Maybe, but the English common law and the British constitution generally has a long history and tradition of lawfare and judicial creativity.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
“Lawfare”: please let’s not let yet another culture war term from America come and fester in our own politics. That one is more toxic than most, because it implies the rule of law shouldn’t apply to big strong men who shout loudly.
Lawfare is exactly what happens.
It’s not uncommon on certain domestic building jobs for the builder to price the job, so that the final snagging payment is not actually expected.
Why?
Because the property owner has a history of going to law, to try and get the price of the job reduced by x%, by starting a law suit based on bollocks.
So they get a price that already includes the “discount” - they sue at the end of the job, and the builder settles by walking away from a payments they didn’t expect to get.
You even encounter people who think this shouldn’t stop the builder being friendly with them afterwards - “it’s just business”….
Sir Edward Coke, the Lord Chief Justice, in 1610 stated in a judgment (Bonham's Case):
"the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be per- formed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.”
Fwor - how woke. Down with this modern lawfare and up the will of the people.
Sir Edward Coke, the Lord Chief Justice, in 1610 stated in a judgment (Bonham's Case):
"the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be per- formed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.”
Fwor - how woke. Down with this modern lawfare and up the will of the people.
Comments
Trump says Putin will accept European peacekeepers in Ukraine
France’s Macron corrects US president’s claim that Europe has only loaned funds to Kyiv at White House meeting
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/24/trump-ukraine-putin-peacekeepers-macron
If we repeal the Human Rights Act, and the ECHR no longer has the force of law in the UK, and we are therefore no longer subject to its rulings, we will effectively have left the convention. Once again, I'm arguing that we should do something, and you come in with your size 12s arguing that I'm talking shit because we can do the thing I'm advocating. Yes, I know we can do it - if we couldn't do it, I wouldn't be arguing for it would I?
We could avoid these embarrassing conversations if you engage your logical faculties (which I don't doubt you possess) before posting.
If he is to come to the UK, it needs to be in much calmer times and not at the height of division, anger and for some fear
What do they expect will happen after Trump ?
https://x.com/tackettdc/status/1894125999048048688
If we followed our own internal rules and laws there would be a lot fewer of these judgements citing the ECHR.
https://x.com/SED210/status/1894076234105057625
And where’s his autocue. Reading from papers in his hands looks dreadful
❗️OPM formally notified agencies this afternoon that responding to the What did you do last week email is now voluntary and failure to respond won’t result in termination...@Hadas_Gold reports
https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1894137117908902204
You might argue that the press would erupt with rage in those circumstances but that is precisely the point. It is supposed to be a big deal to disapply human rights. It is supposed to provoke a conversation as to whether a pressing need is worth the sacrifice of rights. That is a feature, not a bug.
Leaving the convention and replacing it with a "British Bill of Rights" or whatever will not fix our problems.
Parliament should pass primary legislation dealing with the deportation of criminal immigrants rather than wasting time fighting over the repeal of rights that apply to you and I. It is the wrong battle.
The 'traditional values' he describes were rather monocultural.
I rather suspect that young master Grimes would not have lasted long down the pit.
We can no longer pay for millions of people to sit at home and not work because they have self diagnosed "anxiety" and managed to convince a dimwitted assessor that they need PIP.
Next question please.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/10/pakistani-paedophile-escaped-deportation-his-children/
The unnamed father of two toddlers, who was granted anonymity by an immigration court, had been banned from living with his children since he was convicted of trying to get three “barely pubescent” girls to engage in sex and was jailed for 18 months.
However, a lower tribunal judge ruled that he should not be deported back to Pakistan because it would be “unduly harsh for the children to be without their father”.
The Home Office appealed against the decision and was backed by Judith Gleeson, an upper tribunal judge, who set aside the ruling, criticising it as “contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable”. The case is ongoing.
It is the latest case in which foreign criminals have been allowed to remain in the UK by immigration tribunals because they have ruled that deportation would breach their rights to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Right to a family life: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/24/immigration-lithuanian-criminal-deportation-echr-rights/
Article 3, right to be protected from torture, inhuman treatment and degrading punishment: https://www.gbnews.com/news/sri-lankan-sex-offender-allowed-stay-britain-gay-persecution-home
I am genuinely interested in how we tighten legislation to stop these judgements happening, because they seem pretty much based on the ECHR to me.
Much as I dislike it, we are currently in a pretty weak position strategically, as the world moves swiftly around us.
As a result we need to play Trump carefully. We absolutely need to stand up to him and to not be bullied. However, I think we can do that most effectively if we flatter him whilst doing so.
Give him the state visit, the meaningless pomp, and while he's here pull the wool over his eyes strategically.
"I know this much with certainty: that [lost tories in middle england] do not look at the chaos and disorder gripping the US and Trump’s torching of international norms as something to emulate, but instead feel a mounting anxiety."
“[LibDems] don’t have much of an ideology other than being nice,” [Kemi Badenoch] went on, as if niceness was always to be avoided. “A typical Liberal Democrat will be somebody who is good at fixing their church roof. And, you know, the people in the community like them. They are like, ‘Fix the church roof, you should be a member of parliament.’”
Didn’t those people used to be Conservatives? "
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/23/kemi-delusion-more-tories-run-towards-reform-more-their-voters-run-lib-dems
Having digested the @Microsoft Majorana 1 announcement, and discussed it with peers and physicists, we're more skeptical than ever. Here's our breakdown on why it feels so odd...
https://x.com/IanCutress/status/1894106853258195291
One of the joys of buying second hand books is discovering objects that have been tucked between the pages by a previous owner.
I have just unearthed a match ticket from Burnley v West Ham, 18th October 2014.
I can only assume that Alastair Campbell had read the book before me.
For example, you could disapply convention rights to deportation proceedings. That sounds quite heavy handed and maybe it is but the whole point of Parliament is to debate these difficult subjects, not simply sweep away all of our other rights because the alternative is too hard.
OPM tells HR leaders that response to Musk is ‘voluntary’
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5161737-opm-defends-musk-email/
Damn few pits left by then.
And if the country was united during his younger years it was because we had a Labour government under Blair and Brown.
He's just talking bollx to impress his 69 year old Reform friends.
Also -
'These parts of England are assuredly modern, and often more ethnically diverse than they used to be. They are often not quite as affluent as their reputation suggests, but still full of people who are mindful of the health of the economy. Those voters would be in the market for a centre-right party that emphasised the wonders of property ownership and low taxes, and pledged to back the interests of business. What they find repellent, in my experience, is the Tory turn into fanaticism, and the sense that Farage – and now Trump – are pulling the strings. Needless to say, they do not get on their commuter trains every morning and chat animatedly about such hard-right talking-points as “cultural Marxism”, being trapped in 15-minute cities, and the need to have more kids so as to preserve Judeo-Christian culture. In my experience, almost nobody in Britain does.'
And that last comment leaves me with the reflection - [edit] it sums up our PB rightwingers so neatly by reverse.
No Government is that stupid and that's before they lose every court case that sort of cut would create.
If the number of sick claimants increases then the individual payments fall.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdyEHGcS/
Epic misunderstanding by Trump's team as to the meaning of the song? Or one of the best bits of trolling ever?
They were closed by Thatcher in 1980 (for the good reason that they were utterly uncompetitive / productive).
It was then replaced by a crisp factory which was taken over and started going down hill in 1993 as Darren was born...
Kemi is more interested in thinking big thoughts than doing little things for little people.
I'd follow up by capping state pension rises to no more than income rises. If incomes are rising fast then fine pensions can keep up, but if incomes are frozen at 1% nominal increases (real term cuts) then pensioners should face exactly the same income rise as those working for a living.
Those working for their income should NEVER be taking home less than those who are not.
It simply isn't going to happen..
Just to let folk know these votes have consequences.
One good thing about leaving the Convention, though, is that there would be nothing preventing Parliament from legislating to expropriate so-called “private” property without compensation - Art 1, Protocol 1 “ Everyone has the right to own property and use its possessions. No-one shall be deprived of his property unless public necessity so demands. If so, the State must guarantee fair compensation.”
As a good socialist, I’m sure you’re with me that the accumulation of capital is an evil that that part of the hopelessly bourgeois ECHR does too much to protect. Parliament must have the right to bleed the parasitic capitalist class.
Not crisps but international snacks - mignon morceaux were great.
The owners were bought out and the brand was then run into the ground.
Liberty is such a slippery concept, though. I'm completely with you that one of the most important aims of the constitution is to prevent state interference in that which should be the purview of the individual, family, community etc. And this prevention needs constant watchfulness.
But whose liberty? How does eg the weakening of union power (which is something I am guessing you would advocate) impact on the worker who lacks economic power and so is exploited through eg a zero hours contract?
Are they not entitled to liberty as much as you or I? We have little choice but to operate within a capitalist system and within that system I find it very hard to justify defining liberty in just a negative way i.e. freedom from interference. Instead I think it also needs to be defined positively i.e. freedom to flourish by being protected from exploitation.
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court judgement striking the Rwanda plan down in 2023 talked of 'the general conventions of international law' (or something similar), effectively meaning that "you can legislate however you like - you can even leave the ECHR, and we're still not going to let you do this." - you may think that undermines my argument, but remember I say that leaving the ECHR is just a beginning. Root and branch reform is needed in my opinion.
Getty Images caption
Women during the miners strike, Fitzwilliam, Yorkshire, June 1984.
UNITED KINGDOM - APRIL 17: Back-to-back housing in a Yorkshire mining village.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/back-to-back-housing-in-a-yorkshire-mining-village-news-photo/90759519
Possibly the most disunited post-war England had ever been, then or since.
Parliament should legislate better, and go back and fix loopholes where lawyers find them. That is the way Parliament is intended to work, we are a parliamentary democracy after all, rather than a presidential democracy, and always have been.
🚨 NEW: A reporter asked Defense Secretary Hegseth about appointing an "underqualified retired lieutenant general" as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
An angry Hegseth responded: "I'm going to choose to reject your unqualified question."
Trump’s pick is underqualified by standard criteria, as he’ll need a waiver just to be promoted to the position.
https://x.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1894135034463793399
The reason that there are these preliminary questions of whether the Convention is engaged or not is whether or not this somewhat unique interpretation obligation comes into play or not. As this is the argument it sounds like a "human rights" case but in fact the real question is how the statute is to be interpreted.
If the government starts dicking around with pensions that have been built up, then I will be after the money up front, thank you.
As with a lot of things, it might have been better had previous generations not got a load of staff relatively cheaply at the time, by making too-generous promises about the future. But they did, and we are where we are.
The loopholes are created by adding layer of laws upon existing laws, without properly considering the implications.
60-65 +6 months
50-59 +1 year
40-49 +1.5 years
under 40 +2 years
Not an immediate cash flow benefit but a big future saving.
Also end or reduce pension credits.
Tons of secondary legislation also is a blight - more so in a commercial context, which is my area.
At least we know Starmer is safe.
He is a Blair Baby.
In fact, what does he mean by 'country', given the Troubles in NI, come to think of it? Which Mr Blair and his government resolved, if in their own way.
It would mean cutting the state pension by £15 a week, or £750 a year. Even if there is a cold war on, good luck with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson
Almost the entire modern law of negligence was created by judges, not Parliament. Lawyers stretching the law is the English tradition.
Sam Stein
@samstein
·
16m
HHS guidance on responding to Musk email says it's no longer mandatory. Oh, it also contains a 🚨 bullet point at the end
"Assume that what you write will be read by malign foreign actors and tailor your response accordingly"
https://x.com/samstein/status/1894148343581876283
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
There is a great film about this. But regardless, there is nothing new about any of this.
The Runcorn by-election will be Reform’s first real test, and it risks puncturing Farage’s bubble"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/24/coming-runcorn-by-election-reform-first-test/
It’s not uncommon on certain domestic building jobs for the builder to price the job, so that the final snagging payment is not actually expected.
Why?
Because the property owner has a history of going to law, to try and get the price of the job reduced by x%, by starting a law suit based on bollocks.
So they get a price that already includes the “discount” - they sue at the end of the job, and the builder settles by walking away from a payments they didn’t expect to get.
You even encounter people who think this shouldn’t stop the builder being friendly with them afterwards - “it’s just business”….
"the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be per- formed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.”
Fwor - how woke. Down with this modern lawfare and up the will of the people.