(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was* on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
* War.
The position of the opposition is not inconsequential in shaping the policy of government. A Labour government faced with an opposition led by Ken Clarke might have been rather more circumspect about involvement in Iraq for concern over the electoral consequences. See also covid, where Labour consistently opposed from the position of more-and-harder restrictions. In an alternative history where the opposition was of a more libertarian bent, decisions may have been different.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
No wonder Starmer has to act carefully. We're full of US intelligence and military facilities. De Gaulle wins again.
Indeed. Post-war we bet big on the US remaining an essentially benign hegemon, resisting the alternative European security solutions on offer. That bet looks increasingly like a disastrous error.
In the alternate universe where we'd bet big on a combined European security solution, we might now be worrying about having tied ourselves to a structure where many of the other participants were shifting worryingly towards the far right and might veto actions against e.g. Russia. Some kind of bet hedging would probably have been wise.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
You don't have to be left of centre to be in the Centrist Dads. Rory Stewart is the lead singer and he's a One Nation Tory.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
SKS can't afford that sort of brinkspersonship.
SKS: Shut down Fylingdales, plz.🙏🇬🇧
DJT. No. LOL. Do something. 🎤💧
Serious question Why not?
Cough Trident Cough.
Yup. We need to get the French on side & start building our own SLICBMs if we want to credibly maintain our nuclear deterrent by the looks of things. Another expense the government could do without...
(It doesn’t look like we can put French missiles in our launch tubes - unless we had the foresight to make them a few inches larger than they needed to be?)
We could also have a chat with S Korea, who are developing (for now non nuclear) SLBMs.
Though for now they're engaged in their own triangulation efforts with Trump.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
One concrete thing SKS and Macron could do to help Z is to round up and ship back Ukrainian draft dodgers in the UK and France. There's a lot...
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
He really is a nasty piece of work.
I wonder what Sandpit makes of this...
Absolutely despicable. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised if he ships them off to Russia .
Get building that European reusable launch system.
Eutelsat is in talks with the EU to supply additional internet access to Ukraine, it said on Tuesday, amid a two-day surge in its shares on the prospect that OneWeb satellites could replace Elon Musk's Starlink there, - Reuters
🇫🇷🇬🇧 Shares of the Franco-British satellite group have more than tripled in value over the past two days, adding over 1 billion euros ($1.05 billion) to their market capitalisation. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1896979968636207543
I still have no idea whether the UK government bailing out OneWeb was prescience or brexit-spasm, but it's looking pretty good in retrospect.
It was a good idea at the time, and has proved to be a brilliant decision now. Even after merging with Eutelsat we still have a golden share.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
No wonder Starmer has to act carefully. We're full of US intelligence and military facilities. De Gaulle wins again.
Indeed. Post-war we bet big on the US remaining an essentially benign hegemon, resisting the alternative European security solutions on offer. That bet looks increasingly like a disastrous error.
I disagree. Nato did the job it was designed to, as did most other UK-US relationships for many decades. The idea that a bet in the 1940s would last forever is ludicrous; those decisions were taken in the context of their time and the lifespan of arrangements.
To the extent that the *current* UK reliance on the US puts it in an awful position, that's a result of failing to reconsider the arrangements despite the increasingly divergent paths the UK and more particularly US have taken since 2010 or so; repeating mantras of the past without confronting the realities of the present. It's still happening now, more for comfort-blanket purposes than as any useful policy.
We have had at least a decade's warning that the US is not a reliable partner. Trump I should have been sufficient by itself but both Obama and Biden gave their own warnings, at much lower and more subtle levels. We knew a Trump return was highly possible well over a year ago - realistically, four years ago when he was let off his second impeachment. Both Starmer and Sunak before him should have set plans in place to prepare for this eventuality.
But to return to the earlier point, US bases in the UK are a card Britain can play. We should not be afraid to note that it's in our hand, if pushed sufficiently.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
Yep, there is absolutely no way Trump is a Putin shill and Russian asset.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
You can buy commercial imagery down to 30cm resolution.
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
It's not just imagery, though. Signals intelligence of all kinds is also something for which we depend heavily on the US.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was* on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
* War.
The position of the opposition is not inconsequential in shaping the policy of government. A Labour government faced with an opposition led by Ken Clarke might have been rather more circumspect about involvement in Iraq for concern over the electoral consequences. See also covid, where Labour consistently opposed from the position of more-and-harder restrictions. In an alternative history where the opposition was of a more libertarian bent, decisions may have been different.
Are you claiming the Iraq debacle for your party? I would have thought you wouldn't want to touch it with a bargepole.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
A great book and important idea. Unfortunately nobody actually bothers to read it.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
He should have put a question mark at the end of the title then!
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
A great book and important idea. Unfortunately nobody actually bothers to read it.
Well, it has an unfortunate title in the circumstances
thinking about things over night to do with US withdrawing intelligence support. Should matters deteriorate even further between the UK/Europe and the US then one obvious way in which we could seriously inconvenience the US would be by withdrawing US access to data from Fylingdales.
Along with Thule in Greenland and Clear in Alaska this makes up one third of the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning system. It seems to me that if Trump is going to make threats about not helping in the defence of Europe then we should no longer be helping to defend the US.
After all, if Russia is their new best buddy then what do they need the early warning system for anyway?
Other people will know better than me but isn't Fylingdales essentially a US facility?
No wonder Starmer has to act carefully. We're full of US intelligence and military facilities. De Gaulle wins again.
Indeed. Post-war we bet big on the US remaining an essentially benign hegemon, resisting the alternative European security solutions on offer. That bet looks increasingly like a disastrous error.
I disagree. Nato did the job it was designed to, as did most other UK-US relationships for many decades. The idea that a bet in the 1940s would last forever is ludicrous; those decisions were taken in the context of their time and the lifespan of arrangements.
To the extent that the *current* UK reliance on the US puts it in an awful position, that's a result of failing to reconsider the arrangements despite the increasingly divergent paths the UK and more particularly US have taken since 2010 or so; repeating mantras of the past without confronting the realities of the present. It's still happening now, more for comfort-blanket purposes than as any useful policy.
We have had at least a decade's warning that the US is not a reliable partner. Trump I should have been sufficient by itself but both Obama and Biden gave their own warnings, at much lower and more subtle levels. We knew a Trump return was highly possible well over a year ago - realistically, four years ago when he was let off his second impeachment. Both Starmer and Sunak before him should have set plans in place to prepare for this eventuality.
But to return to the earlier point, US bases in the UK are a card Britain can play. We should not be afraid to note that it's in our hand, if pushed sufficiently.
We'd have to look carefully at when the US partnership did the job for Brutain's interests.
It didn't in Iraq, nor particularly in Afghanistan, where the U.S. essentially alsi saw the British involvement as an optional, expendable figleaf. I also would support the prevailing view of the Kosovo War, given what has since come to light about Hashim Thaci, the leader of the KLA, former President of Kosovo, and best friend of Blair, who is awaiting trial for war crimes.
That leaves the 1949-89 40 years, where I fully agree with you. But the Tory hatred to engage with European defence since all that time has been part of the Eurosceptic, and Brexit, errors.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
Ukrainian partisans whose primary focus is the democracy of Ukraine, rather than that of the USA would have every justification at this stage in attempting assassination on Trump, so I can understand this decision in the context of Trump's other decisions.
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was* on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
* War.
The position of the opposition is not inconsequential in shaping the policy of government. A Labour government faced with an opposition led by Ken Clarke might have been rather more circumspect about involvement in Iraq for concern over the electoral consequences. See also covid, where Labour consistently opposed from the position of more-and-harder restrictions. In an alternative history where the opposition was of a more libertarian bent, decisions may have been different.
Are you claiming the Iraq debacle for your party? I would have thought you wouldn't want to touch it with a bargepole.
I wouldn't call the Conservatives my party - though I certainly voted for them in 2001 (despite an excellent Labour candidate locally!). But yes, the Conservatives certainly bear a measure of responsibility for Iraq. The way an opposition oppositions has consequences.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
You can buy commercial imagery down to 30cm resolution.
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
It's not just imagery, though. Signals intelligence of all kinds is also something for which we depend heavily on the US.
There’s a sizeable signals intelligence outfit down in Cornwall, tapping into undersea fibre optic cables & satellite comms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCHQ_Bude
It’s in the public domain that the NSA pretty much paid for all of it.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
He should have put a question mark at the end of the title then!
It was a bestseller anyway. The editor/publisher evidently didn't actually care whether anyone read it.
I vaguely recall buying a copy and falling asleep after the first couple of pages. It's possibly still in the attic.
Is the UK still providing intelligence to Ukraine ? They’ve been told not to pass on US intelligence but surely the US can’t tell the UK not to pass on its own intelligence.
How many spies and satellites do we have out in the wild ?
Just 1 spy satellite right now apparently, with three or four more to come in the next couple of years:
Various online sources suggest we have 6 military satellites in total, but 4 of those are communications satellites.
There might be some secret squirrel ones up there, launched as an extra payload alongside another satellite I guess.
You can buy commercial imagery down to 30cm resolution.
Which is enough for nearly all tasks.
The American military/NRO is a huge buyer of commercial imagery. There are orders of magnitude more commercial imagery satellites than military systems and their costs are vastly lower.
It's not just imagery, though. Signals intelligence of all kinds is also something for which we depend heavily on the US.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
He should have put a question mark at the end of the title then!
There has to be an implicit threat made to Trump that if he continues like this European leaders including the UK will call out his pro Putin sympathies. How much would that damage him? Are there people within the administration who would be prepared to walk? Are we having these conversations?
As I said before maybe it is about time to start making a list of American companies to easily boycott.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
All of those mentioned have said they do not support the idea and do not want elections in the middle of a war. It would be both impractical and destabilising.
As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping centrist dad.."
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
I would say that the period from 1989 to around 2008 and the GFC will be looked back at as a golden age. You could perhaps extend it out as far as circa 2012-2014 but your mileage would likely vary on that.
The 1980s were an exciting decade but there was too much societal upheaval to be seen as a universally benign time to live, and the Soviet threat felt very real in parts of that decade.
The 1990s feel like me to be the sweet spot, but I do think some of the trends that started then, such as the quiet (and in the end relatively uncontested) liberalisation of society, did continue into the noughties too.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The prisons are full, Crown Court cases are taking five years to reach a judge. As you were.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
A great book and important idea. Unfortunately nobody actually bothers to read it.
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This is not to say that there will no longer be events to fill the pages of Foreign Affairs's yearly summaries of international relations, for the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run. To understand how this is so, we must first consider some theoretical issues concerning the nature of historical change."
Direct quote from the man himself in 1989. He believed that Western Liberal Democracy had won the argument.
I think he is right by the way, but we are currently having some more spasms of "wouldn't a strong but benign dictator be better?" etc
That and the theocracies of the world just don't want to get with the plan.
There has to be an implicit threat made to Trump that if he continues like this European leaders including the UK will call out his pro Putin sympathies. How much would that damage him? Are there people within the administration who would be prepared to walk? Are we having these conversations?
As I said before maybe it is about time to start making a list of American companies to easily boycott.
The GOP don’t care. He’s captured them, and even the ones that aren’t card-carrying members of The Cult seem to be willing to stay quiet. I doubt there are enough of those willing to stick their heads above the parapet to make any meaningful difference now.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
A great book and important idea. Unfortunately nobody actually bothers to read it.
Well, it has an unfortunate title in the circumstances
The original essay came out in 1989 BEFORE the Berlin Wall came down. It wasn't the statement of triumph people thought. Could a better title have been considered? Maybe. But you can't expect an article designed for progressive intellectuals to get popular interest.
Whether you think it an unfortunate title, watch some of lectures on youtube. They're magnificent.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping centrist dad.."
There has to be an implicit threat made to Trump that if he continues like this European leaders including the UK will call out his pro Putin sympathies. How much would that damage him? Are there people within the administration who would be prepared to walk? Are we having these conversations?
As I said before maybe it is about time to start making a list of American companies to easily boycott.
Tesla would be an obvious one to start with. And Twitter.
Get building that European reusable launch system.
Eutelsat is in talks with the EU to supply additional internet access to Ukraine, it said on Tuesday, amid a two-day surge in its shares on the prospect that OneWeb satellites could replace Elon Musk's Starlink there, - Reuters
🇫🇷🇬🇧 Shares of the Franco-British satellite group have more than tripled in value over the past two days, adding over 1 billion euros ($1.05 billion) to their market capitalisation. https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1896979968636207543
I still have no idea whether the UK government bailing out OneWeb was prescience or brexit-spasm, but it's looking pretty good in retrospect.
I was very much opposed to the bail out, and have been proved conclusively wrong.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
Perhaps Liberal democracy's problem is you can't make enough money under it - by fair means or foul?
People will always find a way to circumvent it in the name of a quick buck?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
I wonder if Victoria Sparz could actually defect to the Democrats over this: she quit the Republicans, but still voted Johnson for speaker.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
I really don't agree with any of that Pete. We face a challenging future. But I remain faithful that Liberal Democracies will win because Liberal Democracies will deliver a better standard of living. They are not however a steady state and will always face challenges and setbacks.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
A plea: if we are doomed to having an autcorat, can't we please find one better than Nige?
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Jenrick would know this (Leon and the Daily Mail, not so much).
Would know what? You appear to think the above words refute Jenrick's statements - they don't. Dredging rivers has been de-facto banned in the UK, not by being banned, but by introducing a mountain of red tape for anyone who wants to do something as simple as dredge a river. The reporting mentioned is clearly a powerful disincentive, hence it being applied to the case of pregnant women. Indeed this is very clear from the text, where it alleges that people from ethnic minorities face 'disadvantages...within the criminal justice system' and 'disparities in sentencing outcomes', which clearly this new advice is attempting to redress.
If a person in authority were to be found filling in 'too many' of these reports for ethnic minority defendants, would that person face investigation? I strongly suspect so, and so would anybody faced with the task.
This is a codified perversion of the principle of justice before the law.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
Perhaps Liberal democracy's problem is you can't make enough money under it - by fair means or foul?
People will always find a way to circumvent it in the name of a quick buck?
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
A plea: if we are doomed to having an autcorat, can't we please find one better than Nige?
As much as I dislike Farage, as unpleasant as he is I find him much more tolerable than some of his fellow travellers.
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
A plea: if we are doomed to having an autcorat, can't we please find one better than Nige?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.
So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision. https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276
Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.
No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.
Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.
However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.
What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.
You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.
There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.
Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.
Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.
Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.
Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that? The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.
Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.
As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.
Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.
I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.
I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.
I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.
If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.
@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.
For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)
OGH * was nearly an oligarch? That's a turn up !
* I'm officially promoting @rcs1000 ; Mike is now OGH Emeritus - if both will consent .
RCS you are completely right about Russia's anti-fracking activities - they have also funded UK anti-fracking groups, something our centrist Dad anti-Russia brigade are oddly silent about.
(Snip)
Ahem. As perhaps PB's most typical 'centrist dad', I've pointed out a fair few times over the years that Russia would be looking to fund anti-fracking and general environmental groups. The response to which was often: "But they're an oil and gas power! Why would they try to stop oil and gas extraction?"
Which was a rather silly response, as fracking could reduce demand for O&G from Russia, so banning it in the UK could help Russia; and Russia was more interested in fomenting division in the west, and environmental groups do that very well.
So no, this one, at least, was not silent.
(In fact, I went further and said that Russia might well fund both sides of a contentious issue, if that issue would sow discord in an enemy country.)
Well good for you, though I am not sure they would ever push pro-UK hydrocarbon messaging.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
I really don't agree with any of that Pete. We face a challenging future. But I remain faithful that Liberal Democracies will win because Liberal Democracies will deliver a better standard of living. They are not however a steady state and will always face challenges and setbacks.
Everything is cyclical. We are at the point in the cycle where autocracies are ( ironically) being voted in by democratic means. The trouble is autocrats don't like relinquishing the power they won. January 6th showed you this.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
You seem very up on this. You still haven’t told us how the courts will identify the ethnicity of the offender? Do they have a colour chart? A pencil?
Seems important because falling in “the right ethnic cohort” gives you a better chance of avoiding jail
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
A plea: if we are doomed to having an autcorat, can't we please find one better than Nige?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
A PSR more likely leads to a non-custodial sentence. It is advantageous. These guidelines, giving more PSRs to ethnic minorities, trans people, Muslims etc -therefore disadvantage white males and therefore mean white males are more likely to go prison simply for being white. They are racist
Furthermore, can you answer the question that @bondegezou has failed to answer. How do you determine the ethnicity of the offendant? Is there a colour chart? A pencil test? What? Seems quite important. What do you do if they are mixed race, how many drops of blood constitute "mixed"?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Her explanation couldn't have been clearer.
I felt the BBC Verify guy was nervous that he was failing in BBC non-partisanship rules and didn't have someone like Andrea Jenkyns to balance his facts with her opinion.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
Point is that the PSR is to be provided preferentially only for certain groups.
She explained that was because these groups are currently disadvantaged. Although I see your point. Inclusivity for all groups would resolve the problem.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
A PSR more likely leads to a non-custodial sentence. It is advantageous. These guidelines, giving more PSRs to ethnic minorities, trans people, Muslims etc -therefore disadvantage white males and therefore mean white males are more likely to go prison simply for being white. They are racist
Furthermore, can you answer the question that @bondegezou has failed to answer. How do you determine the ethnicity of the offendant? Is there a colour chart? A pencil test? What? Seems quite important. What do you do if they are mixed race, how many drops of blood constitute "mixed"?
This proposal is surely dead in the water though. Independent or not, someone will now be leant on and it'll be dropped. Sir Keir isn't going to war over this particular barnacle.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
All of those mentioned have said they do not support the idea and do not want elections in the middle of a war. It would be both impractical and destabilising.
As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)
Trump isn't interested in facts, he's interested in replacing Zelenskky with someone who will surrender to Russia.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.
The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.
What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.
I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
You seem very up on this. You still haven’t told us how the courts will identify the ethnicity of the offender? Do they have a colour chart? A pencil?
Seems important because falling in “the right ethnic cohort” gives you a better chance of avoiding jail
Presumably they'll simply allow self ID.
Yay, so we can all simply self declare as "Inuit" and we all get PSRs. Perfect
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
A PSR more likely leads to a non-custodial sentence. It is advantageous. These guidelines, giving more PSRs to ethnic minorities, trans people, Muslims etc -therefore disadvantage white males and therefore mean white males are more likely to go prison simply for being white. They are racist
Furthermore, can you answer the question that @bondegezou has failed to answer. How do you determine the ethnicity of the offendant? Is there a colour chart? A pencil test? What? Seems quite important. What do you do if they are mixed race, how many drops of blood constitute "mixed"?
They use the same test as your plan for tax cuts for white babies?
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
All of those mentioned have said they do not support the idea and do not want elections in the middle of a war. It would be both impractical and destabilising.
As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)
Trump isn't interested in facts, he's interested in replacing Zelenskky with someone who will surrender to Russia.
Whilst getting him the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.
Might it be helpful if the Committee put out a release that "No way on God's Earth are you ever - EVER - getting a Peace Prize.
And your approach to Economics isn't looking a great shot to get one either...."
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
BBC Verify on WATO is suggesting that there is likely to be anomalous sentencing based on ethnicity.
Wendy Joseph has just explained the background and facts of it all on WATO. The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
A PSR more likely leads to a non-custodial sentence. It is advantageous. These guidelines, giving more PSRs to ethnic minorities, trans people, Muslims etc -therefore disadvantage white males and therefore mean white males are more likely to go prison simply for being white. They are racist
Furthermore, can you answer the question that @bondegezou has failed to answer. How do you determine the ethnicity of the offendant? Is there a colour chart? A pencil test? What? Seems quite important. What do you do if they are mixed race, how many drops of blood constitute "mixed"?
They use the same test as your plan for tax cuts for white babies?
I imagine they must. I cannot see how else they usefully differentiate, rather than just allowing everyone to self identify as whatever they like, rendering the whole thing absurd
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
All of those mentioned have said they do not support the idea and do not want elections in the middle of a war. It would be both impractical and destabilising.
As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)
Trump isn't interested in facts, he's interested in replacing Zelenskky with someone who will surrender to Russia.
Whilst getting him the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.
Might it be helpful if the Committee put out a release that "No way on God's Earth are you ever - EVER - getting a Peace Prize.
And your approach to Economics isn't looking a great shot to get one either...."
The Art of the Deal might win him the Literature prize, as a work of fiction.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.
The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.
What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.
I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I don't believe Labour took their eye off the ball at all. I reckon they were absolutelty fine with it (Mahmood's Dept has been informed of all this all along). They are so Soaked in Woke they didn't see a problem until Bobby J came in with his Brexit Tackle in the Commons, and now they are all over the place
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
I don't think there's a "better". Politics isn't universal and eternal, it's always dependent on time and place. Liberal Democracy worked fine during the 20th century and uplifted people to a much better place compared to Fascism and Communism. But we now have far greater ability to monitor people than Orwell or the Stasi ever dreamt of, and people are reacting by replacing freedom with safety and conformity as priorities. Consequently it may well be that Authoritarian Populism will work better in the 21st.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
You seem very up on this. You still haven’t told us how the courts will identify the ethnicity of the offender? Do they have a colour chart? A pencil?
Seems important because falling in “the right ethnic cohort” gives you a better chance of avoiding jail
Presumably they'll simply allow self ID.
Yay, so we can all simply self declare as "Inuit" and we all get PSRs. Perfect
(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is planning to revoke temporary legal status for some 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the conflict with Russia, a senior Trump official and three sources familiar with the matter said, potentially putting them on a fast-track to deportation.
It can't be too long before the US starts bombing Kyiv.
Apparently they're in discussions with Ukranian opposition leaders. Tymoshenko, Poroshenko. Zaluzhnyi (sp?) is another option for a reverse Nuland maidan attempt I think too.
All of those mentioned have said they do not support the idea and do not want elections in the middle of a war. It would be both impractical and destabilising.
As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)
Trump isn't interested in facts, he's interested in replacing Zelenskky with someone who will surrender to Russia.
Whilst getting him the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.
Might it be helpful if the Committee put out a release that "No way on God's Earth are you ever - EVER - getting a Peace Prize.
And your approach to Economics isn't looking a great shot to get one either...."
The Art of the Deal might win him the Literature prize, as a work of fiction.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
No one is actually disputing that. These reports are for post conviction sentencing when the rich white woman or the poor black man has already been convicted.
The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.
What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.
I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
Again, this is advocating for different outcomes for the same crime based on someone race or other immutable characteristic. It's fundamentally wrong and Labour would do well to abolish the body and make a big song and dance about how they abolished the body suggesting two tier sentencing.
Quite
Keir Starmer is already known, contemptuously, as Two Tier Kier. If he now introduces literal official "two tier sentencing", for different races, in the lawbooks (or legal "guidelines") he will certainly never escape it
And again, chapeau to Jenrick who saw the political opportunity and came in studs up, clattering Mahmood into the pavilion. Impressive. He has keen political skills
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
I understand the problem of bias that the guidelines are intented to solve and sympathise with their objective but the chosen means looks like an excessively blunt instrument, and one that could introduce new biases. It's important that everyone has faith in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system. They should think again.
Surely the easiest remedy is to ensure that all offenders have a pre sentence report? If it's true that the categories for whom it's currently recommended cover the majority anyway then the overhead wouldn't be that great.
If France extends its nuclear umbrella to E Europe, maybe the UK's could cover Ireland?
After the way Ireland has behaved for the last 9 years? No thanks.
Even before then. Remember way back when they were in a hole and our chancellor (Osborne) bailed them out whilst they did sweet FA about undercutting our corp tax ?
Nice to see the centrist Dads getting bent out of shape over Ukraine whilst the genocide in Gaza has been met with splendid indifference.
The centrist dads aren't happy with that, either. The difference is the UK or Europe's ability to influence events. Which, in the case of whatever it is that Netanyahu and Trump are about to do in Gaza, is close to nil.
Note that Saudi Arabia's bid of $55bn to rebuild the place has just been rejected out of hand by Trump. And MBS probably now has more influence in the White House than we do.
I live a very sheltered life. What is a centrist dad? Am I one because I am both a centrist and a dad or is there a special meaning?
Isn't a 'centrist dad' an anti woke middle aged male with old fashioned conservative views?
Someone like Leon I suppose?
No - that's pretty much the opposite of what it means.
"Centrist dad" was originally a far left term of abuse for social democrat types within the Labour Party, the kind of party members who would turn up to a CLP meeting to vote down Corbynista attempts to replace the sitting MP with some Trot nutter. It has broadened out to encompass a broad swathe of liberal-left opinion, somewhat complacent, enamoured with the status quo, resistant to attempts from both left and right to smash the system. The centrist dad gets his news from Channel 4 News or Newsnight. He likes the Rest is Politics. He cycles to work. He shops at Sainsburys but probably gets an organic veg box in too. He still seethes over Brexit. He wonders what happened to the circa 2000 world that he understood and loved.
To be fair, the circa 2000 world was pretty good. Being born in 1977, my political and general "how the world ought to be" views are pretty firmly shaped by the period when I went to uni, got a first job, etc: post cold war and pre financial crisis. I try to avoid seething about anything, but am a pretty solid match for most of those stereotypes.
Presumably there must be a lot of people who are in a similar late 40s age group but more on the rightward end of the political spectrum: do they also look back fondly on the circa 2000 world?
Yes, and yes: the period between the end of the cold war and the twin towers attack were without doubt the halcyon days. Remarkably worry-free. I also thought that the Labour government of the time was sub-optimal and that Britain would be better off outside of the EU, but neither of these things were in any way existentially troubling.
Someone even wrote a book about it: “The End of History”.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
I think - though I may be wrong - that the author of that book - Francis Fukuyama - is one of those unfortunate people whose fate it is that people remember him as making the exact opposite point to the one he actually made. I think - though I haven't read it - that his point was that 1991 was not the end of history and that all sorts of bad things would keep happening. He may even have given some prescient examples.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
Fukuyama has been misrepresented due to the title of his work - it was not meant to be taken literally (which would be ridiculous).
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
Other than pointing out, er, recent history has smashed the complacency of liberal democracy in the face. Will it fight back?
Liberal democracy is dead. Autocracies would appear to be the future. Trump could be a dry run for Nige.
I really don't agree with any of that Pete. We face a challenging future. But I remain faithful that Liberal Democracies will win because Liberal Democracies will deliver a better standard of living. They are not however a steady state and will always face challenges and setbacks.
Must I repeat Winston Churchill's 1947 quote on democracy?
It was Miliband who made Obama look weak by vetoing the Syria intervention which precipitated Russian involvment and the migrant crisis, leading to a rise in right-wing politics across the Western world.
Miliband Minor must be the unmatched political genius of the last 200 years if he can direct the actions of the US President from the position of British LotO.
I often think that Iain Duncan Smith doesn’t get enough credit for making the Iraq war happen.
Duncan Smith, unless I am mistaken never became important enough to declare was* on Sadam. That was Blair's gig.
* War.
The position of the opposition is not inconsequential in shaping the policy of government. A Labour government faced with an opposition led by Ken Clarke might have been rather more circumspect about involvement in Iraq for concern over the electoral consequences. See also covid, where Labour consistently opposed from the position of more-and-harder restrictions. In an alternative history where the opposition was of a more libertarian bent, decisions may have been different.
Are you claiming the Iraq debacle for your party? I would have thought you wouldn't want to touch it with a bargepole.
I wouldn't call the Conservatives my party - though I certainly voted for them in 2001 (despite an excellent Labour candidate locally!). But yes, the Conservatives certainly bear a measure of responsibility for Iraq. The way an opposition oppositions has consequences.
Labour would have lost the vote on Iraq if the Tories had voted against. Duncan Smith's position was critical to the outcome.
So was Clare Short's. Had she opposed it, she'd have brought probably quite a lot of other MPs with her. Whips were actively using the line that 'Clare's all right with it, so rely on her'. She'd also likely have given a more emotional resignation speech than Cook did.
But yes, the chain reaction of events did lead from Miliband's opposition to Obama calling off action in Syria.
That said, I'd have voted against myself on the basis proposed. If you're going to intervene in a war you need to decide what outcome you want and devote resources and plans to that end. Neither Obama nor Cameron ever said who they wanted to win the war at that stage, nor how they'd try to bring that about, and the actions were more a slap on the wrists for Assad than anything meaningful - a gesture rather than a policy.
Yesterday Lord Justice William Davis, chairman of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, issued a statement defending the new guidelines criticised by Robert Jenrick and Shabana Mahmood. He said:
One of the purposes of the revised Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline is to make sure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available so that they can impose a sentence that is the most appropriate for the offender and the offence and so more likely to be effective. The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.
PSRs provide the court with information about the offender; they are not an indication of sentence. Sentences are decided by the independent judiciary, following sentencing guidelines and taking into account all the circumstances of the individual offence and the individual offender.
Nothing in there refutes what Mahmood and Jenrick are saying though? He's actually saying we will be moving to two tier justice in many more words than necessary. Hopefully Labour abolish this body and shit can this idea because it's wrong. Crime is crime whether it's been perpetrated by a rich white woman or a poor black man, it's still crime.
How is any of this consistent with the Equality Act 2010, and why doesn't someone judicially review it (or someone convicted and sentenced on these guidelines appeal on grounds of discrimination)?
Shabana Mahmood’s claim that her Labour government won’t stand for “two tier justice” - with an anti white, anti male, anti Christian bias - has been somewhat undermined this morning as it turns out the Sentencing Council is independent
So she can write to them asking them to change it. But she can’t force them. Unless Labour decides to change the law - which, given that they have a trillion seat majority, they could do tomorrow
But will they?
“One point worth noting on this morning's sentencing story.
Shabana Mahmood has written to the Sentencing Council urging them to change course. But a government source confirms this morning she cannot order them to do so.
So on April 1 a new sentencing regime will take effect which the Lord Chancellor herself has described as a "two-tier sentencing approach".
I've had a glance at this and it's just a change to guidance on pre-sentence reports, not the sentences themselves. And it happened under the Tories, and is broadly sensible given the longer sentences ethnic minorities get for similar crimes, and taking into account pregnancy, child abuse survivors etc.
What's sad is I just assumed it was going to be a load of nonsense given you were banging on about it. The issue with this is when you do, occasionally, come across a real scandal, it will be much harder to get people's attention.
Well, I made you “glance at it”… and then work out what it is, and what it does, and how it will work, and who devised it (quite a long glance, there), so job done, despite your claims otherwise
And your dismissal of it is ridiculous. This is racist anti-white two tier justice enshrined in law, which could be quite a problem for Two Tier Kier - and Shabana Mahmoud who has claimed this “cannot happen on her watch”
You keep saying Two Tier Keir.
As all of this pre-dates Labour, why were you not saying Two Tier Rishi?
If you actually care about the actual issue?
Good morning
Actually the conservatives objected when in government to the proposals, but then Labour came into office and sat on the committees discussing these controversial measures but failed to alert Mahmoud
This is on labour and for once not Sunak or the conservatives
Actually the Conservatives set this up. Its their legal framework in action. If there was a problem they could have changed the law to prevent it. They did not.
Its the usual Tory hypocrisy. They do something - half-baked and poorly thought through. And do nothing to fix it. Then try and pretend that the problem is only Labour's fault.
As you know I am not a Labour supporter. But the facts are clear - and until the Tories take ownership of the mess they created their support is not going to recover.
It was discussed this morning on Sky ad even Sky accepted that this was labours responsibility as the previous governmet objected but then came the election
You have this habit on pinning everything on the last government, but you are simply wrong this time
Sky News who state "Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she will be registering her "displeasure" and will be recommending the guidance is reversed - however, as the Sentencing Council is independent, she cannot order them to do so."
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that: The independent body, who did a consultation under the Tories, which is now publishing the results of that consultation, is doing something objectionable which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting to the consultion which concluded in February 2024 When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The Tories objected to this when they were in power. Labour didn't do so because they took their eye off the ball, these stupid ideas were allowed to go forwards and now Labour are finding they can't reverse them. It is Labour's mistake but they can rectify it by simply abolishing the body that recommended this idiotic idea and bring the accountability back to Parliament.
I don't believe Labour took their eye off the ball at all. I reckon they were absolutelty fine with it (Mahmood's Dept has been informed of all this all along). They are so Soaked in Woke they didn't see a problem until Bobby J came in with his Brexit Tackle in the Commons, and now they are all over the place
"Didn't see the problem" is exactly it - whether it was politicians or functionaries. Why wouldn't we want to have harsher sentences for white people? It won't even strike the authors as having the potential for controversy. Every bit of government needs to contain an edict about giving special treatment to minorities, and this was no different.
Comments
I wonder what Sandpit makes of this...
See also covid, where Labour consistently opposed from the position of more-and-harder restrictions. In an alternative history where the opposition was of a more libertarian bent, decisions may have been different.
History, unfortunately, came back with a vengeance.
Though for now they're engaged in their own triangulation efforts with Trump.
See also - Epicurus. Who is remembered as someone who really liked tasty and exciting food, but whose point was that the quality of the food was almost entirely superfluous and that the quality of the company was the important thing.
To the extent that the *current* UK reliance on the US puts it in an awful position, that's a result of failing to reconsider the arrangements despite the increasingly divergent paths the UK and more particularly US have taken since 2010 or so; repeating mantras of the past without confronting the realities of the present. It's still happening now, more for comfort-blanket purposes than as any useful policy.
We have had at least a decade's warning that the US is not a reliable partner. Trump I should have been sufficient by itself but both Obama and Biden gave their own warnings, at much lower and more subtle levels. We knew a Trump return was highly possible well over a year ago - realistically, four years ago when he was let off his second impeachment. Both Starmer and Sunak before him should have set plans in place to prepare for this eventuality.
But to return to the earlier point, US bases in the UK are a card Britain can play. We should not be afraid to note that it's in our hand, if pushed sufficiently.
Signals intelligence of all kinds is also something for which we depend heavily on the US.
He wants to re-impose an oligarch on them? I'm sure that will go down well.
BREAKING: The top 10% of earners in the U.S. now account for 49.7% of all spending in the US, per WSJ.
https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1897622439733182825
It didn't in Iraq, nor particularly in Afghanistan, where the U.S. essentially alsi saw the British
involvement as an optional, expendable figleaf. I also would support the prevailing view of the Kosovo War, given what has since come to light about Hashim Thaci, the leader of the KLA, former President of Kosovo, and best friend of Blair, who is awaiting trial for war crimes.
That leaves the 1949-89 40 years, where I fully agree with you. But the Tory hatred to engage with European defence since all that time has been part of the Eurosceptic, and Brexit, errors.
It’s in the public domain that the NSA pretty much paid for all of it.
The editor/publisher evidently didn't actually care whether anyone read it.
I vaguely recall buying a copy and falling asleep after the first couple of pages. It's possibly still in the attic.
He was arguing that once society gets to liberal democracy there is nowhere better to go from there. It is a very difficult assertion to argue against.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184
Perhaps the publisher of the book intervened...
GOP lawmakers balk at Trump’s call to repeal CHIPS Act
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5178662-trump-chips-act-repeal-gop-senators/
As I said before maybe it is about time to start making a list of American companies to easily boycott.
As an aside someoen should point out to Trump that the UK did not have an election for 10 years because of WW2. (Though there were by-elections)
That Sky News? https://news.sky.com/story/anger-over-two-tier-sentencing-as-justice-secretary-shabana-mahmood-rejects-new-guidelines-13322444
Its very simple. The law as it stands makes sentencing independent of government. It had a consultation. Which ended in February 2024.
So your complaint is that:
The independent body,
who did a consultation under the Tories,
which is now publishing the results of that consultation,
is doing something objectionable
which is the fault of Labour
Jenrick says Labour are "asleep at the wheel" for not objecting
to the consultion
which concluded in February 2024
When the Tories Alex Chalk was "at the wheel"
You see the problem? Especially when both sides think the new guidelines are daft and agree that a law change is needed?
The 1980s were an exciting decade but there was too much societal upheaval to be seen as a universally benign time to live, and the Soviet threat felt very real in parts of that decade.
The 1990s feel like me to be the sweet spot, but I do think some of the trends that started then, such as the quiet (and in the end relatively uncontested) liberalisation of society, did continue into the noughties too.
Direct quote from the man himself in 1989. He believed that Western Liberal Democracy had won the argument.
I think he is right by the way, but we are currently having some more spasms of "wouldn't a strong but benign dictator be better?" etc
That and the theocracies of the world just don't want to get with the plan.
Whether you think it an unfortunate title, watch some of lectures on youtube. They're magnificent.
People will always find a way to circumvent it in the name of a quick buck?
We face a challenging future. But I remain faithful that Liberal Democracies will win because Liberal Democracies will deliver a better standard of living. They are not however a steady state and will always face challenges and setbacks.
If a person in authority were to be found filling in 'too many' of these reports for ethnic minority defendants, would that person face investigation? I strongly suspect so, and so would anybody faced with the task.
This is a codified perversion of the principle of justice before the law.
The PSR is additional information for the Judge to consider in sentencing, it does not set guidelines for the sentence.
Now back to the usual suspects block-posting Jenrick's deliberate misrepresentation of it
A PSR more likely leads to a non-custodial sentence. It is advantageous. These guidelines, giving more PSRs to ethnic minorities, trans people, Muslims etc -therefore disadvantage white males and therefore mean white males are more likely to go prison simply for being white. They are racist
Furthermore, can you answer the question that @bondegezou has failed to answer. How do you determine the ethnicity of the offendant? Is there a colour chart? A pencil test? What? Seems quite important. What do you do if they are mixed race, how many drops of blood constitute "mixed"?
I felt the BBC Verify guy was nervous that he was failing in BBC non-partisanship rules and didn't have someone like Andrea Jenkyns to balance his facts with her opinion.
I do believe Jenrick has seen a racial grift to claim his brownie points.
The purpose of the report is to work out what is best to do with the convict. Several factors will be relevant, their age, their criminal record, their risk assessment, etc.
What the statistics show is that if the convict is that poor black man he is much more likely to end up in jail than the rich white woman. A report that sets out more productive penalties, such as requiring the convict to work on his predilection to commit a certain offence will be of assistance to the court and can seek to remedy that bias in the system.
I remain a bit twitchy about this on the basis that it is an important principle that convicts are treated the same for the same crime. But if that is not currently the case it does not seem contrary to that principle to seek to address it.
SCOTUS was right then, scrapping ethnicity checks for PSR is right now.
Might it be helpful if the Committee put out a release that "No way on God's Earth are you ever - EVER - getting a Peace Prize.
And your approach to Economics isn't looking a great shot to get one either...."
Keir Starmer is already known, contemptuously, as Two Tier Kier. If he now introduces literal official "two tier sentencing", for different races, in the lawbooks (or legal "guidelines") he will certainly never escape it
And again, chapeau to Jenrick who saw the political opportunity and came in studs up, clattering Mahmood into the pavilion. Impressive. He has keen political skills
I worked hard on that, to make it stand out
So was Clare Short's. Had she opposed it, she'd have brought probably quite a lot of other MPs with her. Whips were actively using the line that 'Clare's all right with it, so rely on her'. She'd also likely have given a more emotional resignation speech than Cook did.
But yes, the chain reaction of events did lead from Miliband's opposition to Obama calling off action in Syria.
That said, I'd have voted against myself on the basis proposed. If you're going to intervene in a war you need to decide what outcome you want and devote resources and plans to that end. Neither Obama nor Cameron ever said who they wanted to win the war at that stage, nor how they'd try to bring that about, and the actions were more a slap on the wrists for Assad than anything meaningful - a gesture rather than a policy.