Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
What??? I trust that those who are cross about ID cards will be livid about this proposal;
The Tories say they would instruct police forces to check the details of everyone they arrest against biometric borders data, and would be allowed to use facial recognition without informing the public it is in use.
The Tories are walking into exactly the same trap as Labour and turning the whole political debate into a willy waving contest with Reform on immigration.
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
Your loyalty to Kemi is impressive, but sadly misguided.
If you want what is best for the Conservative Party, you should be calling for her replacement.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
A somewhat reassuring view of the Czech election result.
Seeing some foreign accounts saying that Czech fell to Russian propaganda.
Lets clear a situation a bit. First of all communist are fucked. The polls showed at least 7 % support. There wasn’t even 5 percent. So they are not in parliament.
Fascists underperformed massively. The polls predicted 12-14 %. They have barely 8 %.
They’re not in position to dictate referendum on NATO or the EU.
Motorists and ANO declared their support to the Alliance.
Yes there might be rhetorical issues on Ukraine but I predict that business will deliver weapons to Ukraine as usual.
Seems to be good news and bad news from the Czech election. Good news is the straightforwardly fascist parties have done badly. The bad news is yet another dodgy Eastern European populist strongman has cleaned up and will be the next government.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
Shabana Mahmood says 'erm' a hell of a lot in speaking in interview.
Nervous?
A generous interpretation is that she's actually thinking about how she's answering. Were that the case, then it wouldn't be something to judge harshly.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
A somewhat reassuring view of the Czech election result.
Seeing some foreign accounts saying that Czech fell to Russian propaganda.
Lets clear a situation a bit. First of all communist are fucked. The polls showed at least 7 % support. There wasn’t even 5 percent. So they are not in parliament.
Fascists underperformed massively. The polls predicted 12-14 %. They have barely 8 %.
They’re not in position to dictate referendum on NATO or the EU.
Motorists and ANO declared their support to the Alliance.
Yes there might be rhetorical issues on Ukraine but I predict that business will deliver weapons to Ukraine as usual.
Seems to be good news and bad news from the Czech election. Good news is the straightforwardly fascist parties have done badly. The bad news is yet another dodgy Eastern European populist strongman has cleaned up and will be the next government.
Yes, it's not a great result, but neither does it seem to be an Orban style disaster just yet.
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
Your loyalty to Kemi is impressive, but sadly misguided.
If you want what is best for the Conservative Party, you should be calling for her replacement.
I will if she does not cut through and most likely May 26
Though I expect Starmer to be in a similar position by then
Badenoch is the most compelling of the current party leaders because of the gulf between who she believes herself to be (she visibly thinks she is a bold thinker) and the reality (incredibly lazy and partisan).
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
Civil Service flies in hundreds of foreign staff despite vow to cut migration Contrary to Labour pledge to bring situation under control, hordes of overseas workers still in Government employ ... Whitehall departments have sponsored 400 visas for foreign staff and paid £626,000 in fees to allow them to work in the UK in the last year.
As an aside, ‘hordes of overseas workers still in Government employ’ has a Yoda-like rhythm.
This is a clear-cut example of people who are merely using "we want to control immigration" as a euphemism for "we want zero immigration". A minimum of £41,700 is a control.
tbh I suspect it is more a two-pronged attack on the lack of joined up government, and the denial of opportunities to the new graduate offspring of Telegraph readers. It really is not clear why we cannot train our own bureaucrats (see also doctors, nurses and curry chefs). On the other hand, I could easily believe this is an international phenomenon and our graduates go and work in New Zealand or Canada for a bit.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Aren't you on expenses ?
It varies. For random booze in bars and “incidentals”, often not. And fair enough
What??? I trust that those who are cross about ID cards will be livid about this proposal;
The Tories say they would instruct police forces to check the details of everyone they arrest against biometric borders data, and would be allowed to use facial recognition without informing the public it is in use.
The Tories are walking into exactly the same trap as Labour and turning the whole political debate into a willy waving contest with Reform on immigration.
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
I’m afraid she still doesn’t seem to get it.
As leader of a party sliding into irrelevance she needs to seize the news agenda and create space on the political spectrum for the Tories to occupy.
By continuing to prevaricate on policy, she is ceding that space to others and losing the right to be heard.
OK, so on immigration policy she has started to say some things, but it’s just joining the fray to outdo each other on the topic. The ECHR policy is fine as a standalone announcement - we can debate whether it’s a good policy but at least they’ve come off the fence on something - but there is a huge wide open space for the Tories to start talking about economic policies, the cost of living, how we get out of the bond market doom loop, productivity, deregulation, institutional reform and taxes, which they seem to be completely ignoring.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
One of the stories of US 2024 was that people working in, say, the Cheesecake Factory did OK out of Bidenomics, but those who ate there paid the price. Which makes sense really, and is probably the right thing to happen. But the losers always kick up more fuss than the winners.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Meh, don't think we should necessarily refer to any convicted criminal by their alias.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
It’s ridiculous. If this was a majorly famous 5 star hotel with a world class bar you could, perhaps, understand
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
On topic, does anyone understand Northern Ireland?
Some of us understand it less badly than others. As the collision of London politicians of all colours with reality has shown over the last few decades, and especially over Brexit. Indeed, we only have to look to Ms Badenoch for an example.
But, if you understood it well as you claim, you'd acknowledge one community in Northern Ireland was very supportive of Brexit.
Did this NI gaffe not happen a couple of days ago? Old news. I seem to remember it being pretty close over there.
It wasn't as close as the UK. NI 44% leave 56% remain UK 52% leave 48% remain Kemi was wrong in her statement about NI. There's no denying it. Does it matter? I doubt it.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
One of the stories of US 2024 was that people working in, say, the Cheesecake Factory did OK out of Bidenomics, but those who ate there paid the price. Which makes sense really, and is probably the right thing to happen. But the losers always kick up more fuss than the winners.
Not really, because food inflation has been huge in the US, so eating at home e.g. for those who work at the Cheesecake Factory, is through the roof as well.
The problem is in US hospitality, in place like the California minimum wage has shot right up, its $20/hr, but tipping is still 20% minimum. The whole point of the high tipping was that was really paying the wages of the workers. And in terms of drinking, you must tip every single drink, rather than just giving one at the end. So its got super expensive, often $20-30 a drink plus another $3-5 per drink minimum tip (if you ever want to get served again).
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
For exactly the same reason the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are not members
They have their own laws
They aren’t signed up to the ECHR, but they have all signed up to a range of other international treaties. For example, Canada is signed up to:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1952) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1970) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1976) …Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (complaint mechanism) (1976) …Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (2005) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1981) …Optional Protocol to CEDAW (complaint mechanism) (2002) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1991) …Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Involvement of Children in armed conflict (2000) …Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2005) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010) Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018)
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
The question is whether Kemi has a new political philosophy of Conservatism, preferably one that does not invite the accusation they did the complete opposite in office just a year ago, or indeed whether her ostensible replacements do. I'm not sure seeking a pre-election agreement or merger with Reform counts. What is the Conservative Party for?
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Off topic, but I think some of you will find this success -- by a government! -- a pleasant change from most recent posts.
Like many others in Gjoa Haven-- a hamlet perched high in Canada's Arctic, alone on a large, flat windswept island -- Betty Kogvic never had any interest in plants. . . . Today, though, Ms. Kogvic grows strawberries , carrots, broccoli, bell peppers, microgreens, tomatoes and myriad other fruits and vegetable -- year round.
Thanks to a high tech greenhouse. Which she loves.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Badenoch is the most compelling of the current party leaders because of the gulf between who she believes herself to be (she visibly thinks she is a bold thinker) and the reality (incredibly lazy and partisan).
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
The question is whether Kemi has a new political philosophy of Conservatism, preferably one that does not invite the accusation they did the complete opposite in office just a year ago, or indeed whether her ostensible replacements do. I'm not sure seeking a pre-election agreement or merger with Reform counts. What is the Conservative Party for?
A donor and personal adviser to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has defected to Reform UK, Sky News understands.
Mark Gallagher, who gave Badenoch £2,000 for her leadership campaign last October, left the Tories around two months ago- and is now backing Nigel Farage's party, our deputy political editor Sam Coates says.
Speaking on the latest edition of Politics at Sam and Anne's, Sam says he understands that one reason for the defection was the way Badenoch did not respond to repeat attempts to help and was just ignoring him.
A donor and personal adviser to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has defected to Reform UK, Sky News understands.
Mark Gallagher, who gave Badenoch £2,000 for her leadership campaign last October, left the Tories around two months ago- and is now backing Nigel Farage's party, our deputy political editor Sam Coates says.
Speaking on the latest edition of Politics at Sam and Anne's, Sam says he understands that one reason for the defection was the way Badenoch did not respond to repeat attempts to help and was just ignoring him.
Re eating out in the US. I believe McDonalds in the US have been looking at the demographics of their customers and even they are losing the lower / lower middle class clientele due to price.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
I see Gary Neville is making a bit of a pillock of himself talking about the attack on Jews in Manchester and then conflating it with the flag shaggers and saying that he is going around ripping them down.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Conservatives will be BANNED from standing as Tory candidates at the next general election unless they sign up to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, Kemi Badenoch tells @CamillaTominey
So it looks like I won't be becoming a Tory MP at the next election.
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
Your loyalty to Kemi is impressive, but sadly misguided.
If you want what is best for the Conservative Party, you should be calling for her replacement.
We'll see whether Kemi's ratings tank after her 'impressive conference speech' as Starmer's have.
Conservatives will be BANNED from standing as Tory candidates at the next general election unless they sign up to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, Kemi Badenoch tells @CamillaTominey
So it looks like I won't be becoming a Tory MP at the next election.
It might change, but the way things are going, hardly anyone will.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
So someone at my work has gone from Kat to Kit recently. I bet if they got arrested it would be Kat. I abhor Robinson and all he stands for. But it is puerile to insist on calling him Yaxley-Lennon.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Next you'll be referring to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you realise how farcically dated your argument is. "Oooh, we will LOOK BAD on the WORLD STAGE." - when these laws are preventing the deportation of child abusers, drug dealers and violent criminals. That sort of 'legitimacy' we can do without seeking.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Next you'll be referring to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
I want to call them many things, but those are not exactly on my list...
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
His family and close friends still call him Al.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member, so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that of Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
Do you realise how farcically dated your argument is. "Oooh, we will LOOK BAD on the WORLD STAGE." - when these laws are preventing the deportation of child abusers, drug dealers and violent criminals. That sort of 'legitimacy' we can do without seeking.
I never said anything of the sort @Luckyguy1983 . Maybe you should try reading what I said first before going into rant mode. I didn't even put forward a pro or anti argument.
I simply pointed out that someone arguing that Australia and Canada aren't part of the ECHR which is a European organisation is a bonkers argument. Do you disagree with that?
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is surely a valid reason to prefer to leave?
I'm a centrist, liberal and can see its not working as intended. If we can reform it and/or our own laws and their relationship to it, then great, I'd prefer that. If not, I'm pretty ambivalent and would expect the majority of the country, or at least of those who care either way, to want to leave it.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
His family and close friends still call him Al.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
His family and close friends still call him Al.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
What policies do you want to prioritise and implement and how would that happen and where would the money come from ?
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
You can add the receipt to your personal shrine of amazing shit
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
The only reason I’ve seen to leave it is it’s easy to leave it than actually fix the immigration issue that all of Europe wants reformed
Civil Service flies in hundreds of foreign staff despite vow to cut migration Contrary to Labour pledge to bring situation under control, hordes of overseas workers still in Government employ ... Whitehall departments have sponsored 400 visas for foreign staff and paid £626,000 in fees to allow them to work in the UK in the last year.
As an aside, ‘hordes of overseas workers still in Government employ’ has a Yoda-like rhythm.
This is a clear-cut example of people who are merely using "we want to control immigration" as a euphemism for "we want zero immigration". A minimum of £41,700 is a control.
tbh I suspect it is more a two-pronged attack on the lack of joined up government, and the denial of opportunities to the new graduate offspring of Telegraph readers. It really is not clear why we cannot train our own bureaucrats (see also doctors, nurses and curry chefs). On the other hand, I could easily believe this is an international phenomenon and our graduates go and work in New Zealand or Canada for a bit.
We get trained people from overseas because we haven't had to pay for their training. The educated English-speaking middle classes of e.g. Nigeria and India are rapidly growing.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
It is somewhat different. Yaxley-Lennon uses his other six names as aliases. It's like there are seven of the f*******. Thankfully no one would do that on this board or they'd end up talking to themselves.
The big news of the day is that last night ONE classic dry martini in my Culver City hotel bar, here in the heart of movie land, LA, California, cost me $36
One!
Hospitality prices in the US are out of control. We talked last week about the Ryder cup, a shitty beer was $20.
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
One of the stories of US 2024 was that people working in, say, the Cheesecake Factory did OK out of Bidenomics, but those who ate there paid the price. Which makes sense really, and is probably the right thing to happen. But the losers always kick up more fuss than the winners.
Hardly a surprise.
After all big increases in the minimum wage, national insurance reductions and full employment didn't do the Conservatives much good in 2024 either.
- Reform conference - The "we really, really don't like Reform" conference - The "Reform are racists" conference - And the "You can't believe it's not Reform" conference
There may have also been a Green conference focussed on green issues such as Gaza and socialism, but no one can remember.
Civil Service flies in hundreds of foreign staff despite vow to cut migration Contrary to Labour pledge to bring situation under control, hordes of overseas workers still in Government employ ... Whitehall departments have sponsored 400 visas for foreign staff and paid £626,000 in fees to allow them to work in the UK in the last year.
As an aside, ‘hordes of overseas workers still in Government employ’ has a Yoda-like rhythm.
This is a clear-cut example of people who are merely using "we want to control immigration" as a euphemism for "we want zero immigration". A minimum of £41,700 is a control.
tbh I suspect it is more a two-pronged attack on the lack of joined up government, and the denial of opportunities to the new graduate offspring of Telegraph readers. It really is not clear why we cannot train our own bureaucrats (see also doctors, nurses and curry chefs). On the other hand, I could easily believe this is an international phenomenon and our graduates go and work in New Zealand or Canada for a bit.
We get trained people from overseas because we haven't had to pay for their training. The educated English-speaking middle classes of e.g. Nigeria and India are rapidly growing.
A bit like a promotion to the next division in sport.
Unfortunately we cannot relegate the low achievers already in the UK division to lower down the world league.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
What relevance is being in Europe?
We are humans. Australians are humans. Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
I’m on my longest walk in months. I’m going down the old Marlborough to Swindon railway line, heading for where I got hit by a car
There, in Ogbourne Saint Andrew, I’m going to cross the road to the rather nice pub (now Silks On The Downs, a community owned pub, that used to be called the Wheatsheaf when I lived in Ogbourne) and drink a pint or two of their strongest draught beer, before strolling back home
I’ve got plenty of cash on me, but I hope someone will buy me a beer
How will that actually work? The state owns all property, perhaps?
All rental properties become council houses. Paid for and managed by local authorities using a special fund that borrows (off UK public balance sheet) with the asset value of the properties on the other side of the balance sheet?
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
How will that actually work? The state owns all property, perhaps?
All rental properties become council houses. Paid for and managed by local authorities using a special fund that borrows (off UK public balance sheet) with the asset value of the properties on the other side of the balance sheet?
How will that actually work? The state owns all property, perhaps?
All rental properties become council houses. Paid for and managed by local authorities using a special fund that borrows (off UK public balance sheet) with the asset value of the properties on the other side of the balance sheet?
That's already happening in some areas where the council take on the management of a private property and pass it back at the end of the tenancy. So far, so good except ... when the Renters Reform Bill gets Assent, tenancies will effectively be for the life of the tenant so your property will be tied up forever.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
Next you'll be referring to Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker.
Vader must have forgotten his own name, given that they hid his son where Anakin was born, using his real surname and next to an old Jedi called Kenobi. As far as I can tell, he was also brought up by his real aunt and uncle too.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
The only reason I’ve seen to leave it is it’s easy to leave it than actually fix the immigration issue that all of Europe wants reformed
Its easier to amend laws by voting for politicians we elect, than judges whom we don't.
How will that actually work? The state owns all property, perhaps?
All rental properties become council houses. Paid for and managed by local authorities using a special fund that borrows (off UK public balance sheet) with the asset value of the properties on the other side of the balance sheet?
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
What policies do you want to prioritise and implement and how would that happen and where would the money come from ?
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
You mean there are winners and losers depending upon priorities? Levers to pull and alliances to form which will increase one way, whilst taking away from others? What a revolutionary thought.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
What??? I trust that those who are cross about ID cards will be livid about this proposal;
The Tories say they would instruct police forces to check the details of everyone they arrest against biometric borders data, and would be allowed to use facial recognition without informing the public it is in use.
The Overton window definitely appears to have shifted, we have one party threatening to chuck out people will settled status, another wanting ID cards / banning people being able to stay unless they volunteer / banning protests and one wanting an ICE force with biometric checks.
Any one of those a few years ago would have been labelled every -ist under the sun.
Surely our resident ID card supporters will support these policies.
After all it’s just about streamlining the operation of The State? And The State never does wrong + they have all information anyway + think of the children.
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
His family and close friends still call him Al.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
A bit more complicated than that, aiui. Boris was Boris at Eton and Oxford, Alexander at the Times, then Boris again at the Telegraph.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
I can't help but think Labour would do a lot better by improving the NHS and education but picking up Greens and LDs on sustainability, whilst the Tories should concentrate on repairing their reputation as being hard-nosed but economically competent. Trying to outdo Reform on immigration is, paradoxically, just losing votes to Reform by continually focusing on immigration. A battle they can never win.
Do you have magic wands which Labour can wave to improve health and education ?
Or for the Conservatives to wave to reduce the oldies demand for more welfarism ?
No magic wand, no. They'd probably have to prioritise and implement policies targeting those, rather than use the magic wands they currently have for immigration that are working so well.
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
What policies do you want to prioritise and implement and how would that happen and where would the money come from ?
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
You mean there are winners and losers depending upon priorities? Levers to pull and alliances to form which will increase one way, whilst taking away from others? What a revolutionary thought.
And it means that its a lot easier to write on niche websites "improve the NHS and education" than it is to actually improve the NHS and education in reality.
Conservatives will be BANNED from standing as Tory candidates at the next general election unless they sign up to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, Kemi Badenoch tells @CamillaTominey
So it looks like I won't be becoming a Tory MP at the next election.
You could campaign as a Reform candidate and then defect the day after the election. Probably one's best chance to become either a Tory or a Labour MP
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
“Tommy Robinson” is more like a nom de plume than a name change. It’s like “Lady Gaga” or “Madonna”. But it’s worse than that: “Tommy Robinson” was a pseudonym he used to hide his criminal activity. So, no, it’s not like a trans person changing their name of Osborne going by George rather than Gideon.
("Madonna" is Madonna's real birth name - she's Madonna Louise Ciccioni)
Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform
I have no idea how the public will respond, but the conference season ends this week and Parliament is back next week so let's see where the polls land
The question is whether Kemi has a new political philosophy of Conservatism, preferably one that does not invite the accusation they did the complete opposite in office just a year ago, or indeed whether her ostensible replacements do. I'm not sure seeking a pre-election agreement or merger with Reform counts. What is the Conservative Party for?
To pinch the Stephen Fry joke about Sainsburys .. To keep the riff raff out of Reform
Labour in government habit of going all authorian showing through again. It's only 2 mins since the Tories attempt to curtail JSO blocking all the roads on a daily basis was met with outrage by Labour.
Also whatever happened to the tradition of not announcing things during party conferences. They are all at these these days shouting over on another when each other conferences are on.
I can see the need; if you lived somewhere that these anti-Jewish shits turned out every other week, you might be more than a little peeved. They don't care anything about the fear they cause in the Jewish community, or the disruption they cause to the lives of their fellow citizens.
It is, however, a law change that could easily be exploited by bad regimes.
As for your last paragraph: remember how Starmer and Labour lambasted Conservative governments for announcing things outside parliament? Now they're in power, they're doing exactly the same thing.
Your language doesn't help you or your cause, or would you like it if I called you a pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill.
The vast majority at these protests aren't anti Jewish, they are anti genocide, my friend's mother was arrested yesterday for the first time in her life at 80, which amused her son, given she's over the last 40 years protested against inter alia South Africa/apartheid, China/Tibet, Sudan, Russia, and Yugoslavia.
From what I gather her crime, holding a Palestine flag, which according to others, will see no further action in a few weeks time.
My apologies for my anger on this topic.
I would not like it if you called me a "pro genocide/pro Tommy Robinson shill". I would also be rather confused and amused, as I'm uncertain *how* you would make that connection. Especially as I was criticising Netanyahu *before* October 3rd, and you will not find me sharing anything other than contempt for Tommeh.
However, here's why I call those who protested last night "anti-Jewish". Three days ago, there was a terrorist attack on a synagogue. These protests have been spreading fear in the Jewish community. At a time they are grieving, at a time they are fearful, these lovely people protest and spread more fear. And, in my view, hatred.
It's similar to what I said about Tommeh's protest: if you attended you were amplifying his voice, not yours if you disagreed with him. In this case, the attendees amplified the fear many Jews in this country feel.
And I find that appalling.
Can we all please refer to the artist formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon please?
No chummy nom de plumes please. He is not our friend.
Just to understand, if a trans person wants to change their name it’s their right to do so and we should respect that? But if someone that you dislike want to we should ignore that?
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
Because, as far as I know, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his actual name and the one he is repeatedly convicted under.
And Gideon George Osborne and Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson are their legal names too.
His family and close friends still call him Al.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
A bit more complicated than that, aiui. Boris was Boris at Eton and Oxford, Alexander at the Times, then Boris again at the Telegraph.
As the naval review goes, "this officer is both frank and earnest with women. In Plymouth, he is Frank, and in Portsmouth, he is Ernest."
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Canada and Australia are in Europe now but are yet to join the ECHR? I missed that, I was probably too busy writing too much old bollocks on here.
Conservatives will be BANNED from standing as Tory candidates at the next general election unless they sign up to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, Kemi Badenoch tells @CamillaTominey
So it looks like I won't be becoming a Tory MP at the next election.
Doesn't look like a huge pool of candidates at the moment to be honest, must be willing to back leaving the ECHR but also hate Farage and love Kemi and willing to submit to a gruelling campaign with a 90% chance of defeat
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Since when had Canada and Australia been in Europe. It isn't the Eurovision Song Contest.
Since when were human rights supposed to be restricted to a particular region ?
They are not, but it is a European organisation, whose members are solely European so you wouldn't expect a non European country to be a member so when someone says we will be alone with Russia and Belarus (a very good response) a reply to that Australia and Canada are also not members is disingenuous to say the least.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, a condition of membership and a key component of the UK's collection of international treaties. You would break all of these by exiting ECHR. It isn't a technical change. The Council of Europe exists to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe. You would only leave the Council of Europe if you want to dispense with one or more of those three things, and so far that has been only the reason why countries have left - Greece under the junta and Russia under Vladimir Putin.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
Not liking it is a compelling reason. Its democracy.
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
Compelling to you obviously, but not a reason you are able to articulate it seems. To your point of whataboutery on Australia and Canada. Both countries would undoubtedly be in the Council of Europe if they were in Europe, but they are not, so they are not. Australia all but admitted this somewhat wistfully in its strategic white paper
I have articulated a reason, our laws should be subject to democracy.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
...Lots of attacks on Badenoch on here but she is finally announcing policy and taking the fight to Reform...
It's not "taking the fight to Reform". She's fighting her opponent about an issue of their choosing at a time of their choosing, when they can easily outbid any attack she makes. At the very least she's not winning and is not setting the agenda.
I await her details on this subject which apparently follows a review by David Wolfson who is a barrister
What has become increasingly obvious the powers of the ECHR are seen as a problem, and not just with Farage declaration to leave, and now Badenoch's, but also Starmer is wanting changes
Some on the right have picked the ECHR as a bogeyman. They want to rekindle the Brexit debate and so have picked on something else with European in its name. The actual day-to-day impact of the ECHR on our lives is not great.
The ECHR is not responsible for unaffordable housing, for insecure employment, for all-powerful tech companies creating monopolies. The ECHR is not responsible for cancer or dementia or long COVID. The ECHR does not cause rape or assaults or mobile phone theft. The ECHR is not why it's difficult to see a GP or book a driving test.
Badenoch's announcement is clickbait as politics, not a serious attempt to make our lives better.
Your second paragraph is not the reason why leaving or amending the ECHR is such a hot topic
It relates entirely to our ability to stop the boats and illegal migration and it is clear even Starmer recognisies it and is reviewing parts of it
The status quo on the ECHR is not sustainable
Can you explain the mechanics of why we should join Russia and Belarus in a human rights hinterland?
To make sure Canada and Australia can outvote them?
Canada and Australia are in Europe now but are yet to join the ECHR? I missed that, I was probably too busy writing too much old bollocks on here.
Being in Europe is irrelevant to whether people are humans or not.
If you want to join a country called Europe, then do so, but otherwise it is completely irrelevant.
A bit rich coming from somebody who came to this country to be born, and thus gain British citizenship under existing rules. Who immediately went back to West Africa, to be brought up with West African values. Who returned to this country just in time to count as a "home student" paying cheaper rates for her university education. Who then benefited from positive discrimination to be fast-tracked into Parliament, to end up where she is today - lecturing us on what British people want. And is now trying to ride the Farage-Trump tidal wave that threatens to end democracy in the western world.
Comments
Are you one of those people who wanted to call George Osborne “Gideon”? Or Boris Johnson Al?
The only beneficiary of that will be Reform.
If you want what is best for the Conservative Party, you should be calling for her replacement.
One!
Eating out and drinking out on a regular basis is becoming an activity for the rich, where as when I started going to the US it was so cheap it was stupid not to.
Were that the case, then it wouldn't be something to judge harshly.
(Also Orban's regime is potentially in trouble.)
Though I expect Starmer to be in a similar position by then
If I get sent to a restaurant then yes, etc
As leader of a party sliding into irrelevance she needs to seize the news agenda and create space on the political spectrum for the Tories to occupy.
By continuing to prevaricate on policy, she is ceding that space to others and losing the right to be heard.
OK, so on immigration policy she has started to say some things, but it’s just joining the fray to outdo each other on the topic. The ECHR policy is fine as a standalone announcement - we can debate whether it’s a good policy but at least they’ve come off the fence on something - but there is a huge wide open space for the Tories to start talking about economic policies, the cost of living, how we get out of the bond market doom loop, productivity, deregulation, institutional reform and taxes, which they seem to be completely ignoring.
It’s a pretty hotel bar in a nicely refurbed historic art deco 4 star….
$36 for one drink
😶
The problem is in US hospitality, in place like the California minimum wage has shot right up, its $20/hr, but tipping is still 20% minimum. The whole point of the high tipping was that was really paying the wages of the workers. And in terms of drinking, you must tip every single drink, rather than just giving one at the end. So its got super expensive, often $20-30 a drink plus another $3-5 per drink minimum tip (if you ever want to get served again).
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1952)
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1970)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1976)
…Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (complaint mechanism) (1976)
…Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (2005)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1981)
…Optional Protocol to CEDAW (complaint mechanism) (2002)
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987)
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1991)
…Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Involvement of Children in armed conflict (2000)
…Optional Protocol to the CRC on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (2005)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2010)
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2018)
source$: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/world/canada/gjoa-haven-canada-greenhouse-plants-produce.html
And they need that food, given the hamlet's rapidly growing population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjoa_Haven
Honestly, what a ridiculous level of debate.
A donor and personal adviser to Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has defected to Reform UK, Sky News understands.
Mark Gallagher, who gave Badenoch £2,000 for her leadership campaign last October, left the Tories around two months ago- and is now backing Nigel Farage's party, our deputy political editor Sam Coates says.
Speaking on the latest edition of Politics at Sam and Anne's, Sam says he understands that one reason for the defection was the way Badenoch did not respond to repeat attempts to help and was just ignoring him.
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-tory-conference-badenoch-starmer-india-protests-terrorism-12593360
Not so easy when you’re actually in a battle.
I abhor Robinson and all he stands for. But it is puerile to insist on calling him Yaxley-Lennon.
No-one supporting the exit, to my knowledge, has articulated a compelling reason to leave, beyond, don't like it.
“Er, no.”
… 5sec pit stop for Piastri.
Piastri is going to be even more whiny after this stop.
He only became Boris after he was sacked for lying at The Times.
I simply pointed out that someone arguing that Australia and Canada aren't part of the ECHR which is a European organisation is a bonkers argument. Do you disagree with that?
I'm a centrist, liberal and can see its not working as intended. If we can reform it and/or our own laws and their relationship to it, then great, I'd prefer that. If not, I'm pretty ambivalent and would expect the majority of the country, or at least of those who care either way, to want to leave it.
The Tories have handed out goody bags which include a Reform fag packet manifesto #cpc2025
https://x.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1974817273735975296
This is a country with financial constraints, with a process state, with vested interests, with competing and often incompatible demands.
There are few quick fixes and there are even fewer quick fixes which do not create other problems.
After all big increases in the minimum wage, national insurance reductions and full employment didn't do the Conservatives much good in 2024 either.
- Reform conference
- The "we really, really don't like Reform" conference
- The "Reform are racists" conference
- And the "You can't believe it's not Reform" conference
There may have also been a Green conference focussed on green issues such as Gaza and socialism, but no one can remember.
Unfortunately we cannot relegate the low achievers already in the UK division to lower down the world league.
The Green Party has just voted to make "Abolish Landlords" Party policy. Some concerns around the proactive name but passed almost unanimously
https://x.com/isaac_kh/status/1974818309645185217
We are humans.
Australians are humans.
Canadians are humans.
We should all have the same fundamental human rights. Or whatever our respective Parliaments democratically vote for.
Geography does bit change our humanity.
We could choose to be part of a European nation, in which case it might be relevant, but we are not.
There, in Ogbourne Saint Andrew, I’m going to cross the road to the rather nice pub (now Silks On The Downs, a community owned pub, that used to be called the Wheatsheaf when I lived in Ogbourne) and drink a pint or two of their strongest draught beer, before strolling back home
I’ve got plenty of cash on me, but I hope someone will buy me a beer
Paid for and managed by local authorities using a special fund that borrows (off UK public balance sheet) with the asset value of the properties on the other side of the balance sheet?
Nobody has yet articulated a compelling reason why we should be members, when Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not.
An accident of geography is entirely irrelevant.
As for other treaties referencing it, so what? All of those treaties can be amended if required. The tail can not wag the dog. All of the other entirely democratic countries around the globe not in the ECHR manage just fine without being in the Council or Europe.
So there are 'council house' but not on the B/S
After all it’s just about streamlining the operation of The State? And The State never does wrong + they have all information anyway + think of the children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fawcett
This was a mistake, as it rejected bread after that.
It was due to familiarity bread contempt.
We elect a new Parliament every five years at the most.
Prior politicians, and the laws they passed, absolutely should always remain subject to review at the next and all subsequent elections.
No Parliament can bind its successors.
The fact that we are in Europe and they are not is utterly irrelevant. We are still humans, just like them. We are talking about human rights, not European rights.
If you want to join a country called Europe, then do so, but otherwise it is completely irrelevant.