She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
History is full of countries with constitutions stuffed to bursting with protections for the common man.
The enforcement is another issue. See the Soviet Union.
Yes of course. There's no 100% protection against tyranny. Courts aren't, constitutions aren't, even the best (free and fair elections) aren't.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
Firstly, I suspect that they won't. Secondly, the Convention applies across the whole of Europe. It does not get interpreted differently for different countries. Thirdly, in our Supreme Court, we have a safeguard which means that interpretation will follow an element of rationality which the ECtHR itself does not always achieve.
We have so many really very serious problems to deal with, most of them financial. It would be a shocking and appalling waste of bandwidth in this goldfish world of social media that we live in to spend time on this. A complete distraction from our real problems which are growing ever larger as Reeves proceeds with her incompetence. It is as irrelevant and as pointless as the concept of Scottish Independence is north of the border and you don't get much more moronic than that.
A lot of the blame is put on John Birt. The Tories probably liked him because of his background in commercial television but he was something of a revolutionary when it came to his attitude to journalism.
Labour hire people who make the BBC biased and the Tories hire people who (intentionally or otherwise) make it s***.
Interesting article, thank you. Although I agree with the guy in the comments who points out that Victorian journalists were simply not impartial. But the point of the article - that journalists should restrict themselves to “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” and “how” and leave the "why" to others is sound. I suspect the BBC will sadly not do this, but instead report two competing sources on "why" and call it "balance". Which will make things worse, not better.
Whatever the quality of the argument- right now, that's a crazy thing to say.
It's looks like she did a decent job at Justice, and may well be effective at the Home Office. If she can thread the multiple needles on immigration, she will be in a strong position in 2028 or so. But it's much much much too early to say whether she would make a good PM. And this fast-tracking of relatively untried newbies up the ladder is one of the key reasons they fail so reliably.
It happened to Rishi, it's happening to Kemi, and the response of some on the right is to put forward Katie Lam as the next human to throw into the mincing machine.
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
The transformation of MTG is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
My cod psychological theory is that after glorying in being a nasty old MAGA lib-tears drinker, she’s quite enjoying being likeable and people being nice about/to her. Would that others might take note.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
You’re wasting your time. Their argument is the intellectual equivalent of “your Mum smells”
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Well answer me this then. How, if we weren't in Europe, could we even think about leaving the ECHR? We couldn't. Ergo it not only does matter that we're in Europe, it's central to the debate.
No, it is not, since all that matters is human rights.
Is it possible to have human rights in the ECHR? YES. Is it possible to have human rights out of the ECHR? YES.
Therefore for the UK voters it is a political choice, no more, no less. Geography does not change that.
If we choose to leave, we will be a free, Parliamentary democracy outside the ECHR just like multiple other ones around the globe.
That we would be the only European one may be an interesting quirk for a pub quiz, but not meaningful.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
'The point' is that a foreign organisation that is not elected by the British public, or even appointed by our own parliament, is the highest authority in the land, and by a self-declared 'living instrument' doctrine has accrued the power to countermand member states' elected governments' and dismisses all attempts to ask it to reconsider its course.
Whilst we are on the subject of there being 'no point', your arguments for remaining part of the court are thin gruel at best.
'Make us something of a pariah' - gosh, someone cover the children's ears. A 'pariah' with who exactly? Le Monde? The Frankfurter Allgemeine? Will their be clucks of disapproval over morning coffee in Brussels? The argument is completely unserious.
Who says we will need a 'British code of human rights'? Before we had the ECHR we had centuries of common law that protected the rights of individuals far better than they were protected on the Continent where the Napoleonic code predominated.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
The transformation of MTG is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
My cod psychological theory is that after glorying in being a nasty old MAGA lib-tears drinker, she’s quite enjoying being likeable and people being nice about/to her. Would that others might take note.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
History is full of countries with constitutions stuffed to bursting with protections for the common man.
The enforcement is another issue. See the Soviet Union.
Alexander Zinoviev once made a joke which Clive James was fond of repeating, namely the Soviet Constitution was a document which was only created to find out who agreed with it, so that they could be dealt with.
The funny thing now having listened to the whole rant is the number of people who he casually slandered. Biden stealing 3 billion dollars. Several named election officials deliberately fiddling the figures. Hunter Biden doing a deal for personal gain with Kazakstan.. Possibly the most boring rambling speech of all time . The BBC should demand an apology with costs
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
If we choose to leave, and I am not sure if we should or not, then no we should not replace it.
We already have Parliament and a Supreme Court. And multiple global rights conventions.
If we leave, the purpose would be to restore Parliament as the ultimate arbiter of our laws.
Whatever the quality of the argument- right now, that's a crazy thing to say.
It's looks like she did a decent job at Justice, and may well be effective at the Home Office. If she can thread the multiple needles on immigration, she will be in a strong position in 2028 or so. But it's much much much too early to say whether she would make a good PM. And this fast-tracking of relatively untried newbies up the ladder is one of the key reasons they fail so reliably.
It happened to Rishi, it's happening to Kemi, and the response of some on the right is to put forward Katie Lam as the next human to throw into the mincing machine.
Today's problems are entirely a result of Starmer's unsuitablity as PM aided and abetted by the worst chancellor in history [even below Kwarteng]
Ipso Mori has her at 11%
Mahmood and Streeting certainly have done themselves no harm and unless Starmer and Reeves can conjure a miracle one or both are likely to be out of office by May 26
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
The transformation of MTG is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
My cod psychological theory is that after glorying in being a nasty old MAGA lib-tears drinker, she’s quite enjoying being likeable and people being nice about/to her. Would that others might take note.
Have to admit, the "I think that's a fair criticism" reply impressed even an old cynic like me.
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
The transformation of MTG is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
My cod psychological theory is that after glorying in being a nasty old MAGA lib-tears drinker, she’s quite enjoying being likeable and people being nice about/to her. Would that others might take note.
does she still get airtime on Fox News etc or is she now an online only treat, kinda like BBC3?
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Well answer me this then. How, if we weren't in Europe, could we even think about leaving the ECHR? We couldn't. Ergo it not only does matter that we're in Europe, it's central to the debate.
No, it is not, since all that matters is human rights.
Is it possible to have human rights in the ECHR? YES. Is it possible to have human rights out of the ECHR? YES.
Therefore it is a political choice, no more, no less. Geography does not change that.
If we choose to leave, we will be a free, Parliamentary democracy outside the ECHR just like multiple other ones around the globe.
That we would be the only European one may be an interesting quirk for a pub quiz, but not meaningful.
Two counter-arguments. The first feels like a biggie, the second perhaps less so to you.
The key thing is that all the excitement about Brexit has left a porous border between the UK and the EU, along the Eire/Northern Ireland border. That has been a massive PITA to resolve when it has been about the movement of sandwiches. Furthermore, most of the resolution has been in the form of the UK shadowing EU rules.
Now imagine doing the same thing for human rights. There are the same options as before- NI aligns with ECHR-land and there's an Irish Sea border, or NI decouples from ECHR-land and aligns with Great Britain. Either of them might be technically possible, but neither of those look very pretty to me. Indeed, if we are talking about people, not stuff, the issues are starker.
As for the less tangible point- although people are people everywhere, the challenges of living together look different in different places and with different histories. In terms of our proximity to each other, the relative lack of empty land to just bugger off to, the long shadows of the wars that various European countries have fought against each other and empires created and dissolved... the versions of the "how shall we live together" questions we have to answer in Europe have a different tone to those in other countries, parliamentary democracies or not.
Besides- let's name the elephant in the room here. The pressure to disapply the ECHR and replace it with something else is not from people who want to add to the text. It's from people who would like to remove or weaken aspects of the Convention.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
History is full of countries with constitutions stuffed to bursting with protections for the common man.
The enforcement is another issue. See the Soviet Union.
Alexander Zinoviev once made a joke which Clive James was fond of repeating, namely the Soviet Constitution was a document which was only created to find out who agreed with it, so that they could be dealt with.
Speaking of James on Constitutions, here is an observation that resonates today...
"...In sober moments, we know that the Constitution of the United States would mean nothing without the laws that grow out of it and back it up. Without them, the rights it promulgates would be no better guaranteed than those enshrined in the old Soviet Constitution, a document that, as the dissident sociologist Alexander Zinoviev suggested, was published only in order to find out who agreed with it, so that they could be dealt with..."
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
Doesn't seem to have stopped your very misguided thinking, just saying.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
Completely agree with this. The other day I suggested that the outcome of the next election might be Reform 25%, Labour and Tories 20%, Greens and Lib Dems 15% and sundry rubbish such as the SNP and whatever Your party is being called that week 5%. The result would be a Parliament that was incapable of providing stable governance but it would accurately reflect the lack of social cohesion we have as a country along with our somewhat tangential contact with reality.
This is not to understand how politics works. Suppose such a HoC is elected, and it could be. Then there will be an attempt to form a government. Then as an MP you will support the proposed government or not. All MPs will either support the government or oppose it and that is how the two party system works. THEN there will be another election when the government falls because it wasn't soundly based. Now ALL the Tories will say one approved TORYISH candidate in each seat, and only one. And they will win a very easy majority. Or else the Socialists will say the same and they will win. The present instability will not last, not even if there is an attempt to entrench it with a so-called proportional representation. In ten years time there will be two main blocks one on the left and one on the right, there might be a mixed up middle but most likely that will be forced to join one of the sides. My guess is that post Farage Reform will have no difficulty working with other right of centre parties.
Of course all the other parties could unite against Reform, as per France. In this country that would be deadly for the Cons, as it has been in France. My guess, in 10 years time, a very long period of right of centre rule but its parantage will be very dodgy.
Even in France the anti RN vote has actually increased the Les Republicains seats compared to what they would have got under FPTP.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
The transformation of MTG is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
My cod psychological theory is that after glorying in being a nasty old MAGA lib-tears drinker, she’s quite enjoying being likeable and people being nice about/to her. Would that others might take note.
Have to admit, the "I think that's a fair criticism" reply impressed even an old cynic like me.
Yep, fronting up to having made mistakes without qualification is a rare thing across the political spectrum. Pretty rare for the rest of us tbf.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
Doesn't seem to have stopped your very misguided thinking, just saying.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
This is an argument between those in favour of the EU and those who are either not or ambivalent
For me I would prefer to remain in the ECHR, but not at any price and if reclusing from parts on immigration means the matter can be addressed than so be it
It is clear Mahmood is moving to amend the ECHR, as are member states of the EU but the changes will be slow and the political move is for action now
The immigration issue has to be addressed by whatever means otherwise Reform and Farage will walk into Downing Street at the next GE
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
It would be interesting to think of PB equivalents - "MRDA" springs to mind?
That doesn't terminate thought. Nor does 'doing heavy lifting in that sentence'. On the contrary, both signal slightly ironical dissent, which leads to more discussion.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
Doesn't seem to have stopped your very misguided thinking, just saying.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Maybe, maybe not.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
May i introduce you to the Starkey Thesis: that the UK Parliament has subcontracted so much of its decision-making capacity to other bodies that it now no longer functions. I then point out that leaving the ECHR will not fix this without making MPs realise what their job is.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Quite a shame Miliband is for handing out 20 year CfD contracts
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
It would be interesting to think of PB equivalents - "MRDA" springs to mind?
"Laffer curve", "Britain is broken"...
None of these, including the ones Lucky quoted, are thought-terminating though as Lucky himself demonstrates by his regular, robust (if misguided) defence of Truss.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
More power to her elbow. Why is it any of our business?
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Maybe, maybe not.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
Our energy demands peak December to February.
Solar does still deliver cloudy days, albeit the days are also short too. I think wind has a place.
Hopefully fusion will be on grid in the next thirty years so all will be fine.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
I would vote against that, but would remind you that democracy is the worst solution apart from all others that have been tried.
If a stacked court with an agenda ruled that people had a human right to abuse to death any Stuart in Romford, then you could not even vote against that.
At least if a Parliament passes a bill that I vehemently oppose I can vote to get it repealed. If an undemocratic, unelected court does you have no recourse.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
"Though terminating cliche" falls into the same category.
It's not entirely surprising that Lucky didn't include any of those in his list.
One could also call them mental shortcuts; heuristics which mean we don't have to repeat the entirety of the same argument every time we make a point, of course.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
Since she is looking to be (and actually is) a Minister and not on the front cover of Heat magazine, I am going to say yes it is.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Not that likely, is it.
Something that specific, no.
But there have been moral panics, including in fairly recent history, and the will of the people has been to do some pretty crazy nasty stuff in response.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Not that likely, is it.
Something that specific, no.
But there have been moral panics, including in fairly recent history, and the will of the people has been to do some pretty crazy nasty stuff in response.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.
Firstly, I suspect that they won't. Secondly, the Convention applies across the whole of Europe. It does not get interpreted differently for different countries. Thirdly, in our Supreme Court, we have a safeguard which means that interpretation will follow an element of rationality which the ECtHR itself does not always achieve.
We have so many really very serious problems to deal with, most of them financial. It would be a shocking and appalling waste of bandwidth in this goldfish world of social media that we live in to spend time on this. A complete distraction from our real problems which are growing ever larger as Reeves proceeds with her incompetence. It is as irrelevant and as pointless as the concept of Scottish Independence is north of the border and you don't get much more moronic than that.
The convention applies. However the courts interpreting it differ.
It's a cultural attitude - the "Living Law" interpretation vs emphasis on changes in law to create new rights.
For example, not long ago, a UK court created the idea that "family members" aren't just relatives, people you married or related to people you married.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
More power to her elbow. Why is it any of our business?
She has described herself as a devout Muslim.
She made a compelling argument against assisted dying which had a powerful impact on me.
“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign. I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”
She continued: “It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald. In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.
“Faced with expensive or insufficient care, some may feel they have become too great a burden to their family, friends and society at large. In doing so, they would not be choosing death because that is what they want for themselves but because they think that others might want it for them.”
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
May i introduce you to the Starkey Thesis: that the UK Parliament has subcontracted so much of its decision-making capacity to other bodies that it now no longer functions. I then point out that leaving the ECHR will not fix this without making MPs realise what their job is.
I think it's important to be technically correct here: the executive has entered into treaties that bind the United Kingdom. Parliament can always pass laws that break said treaties.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
Since she is looking to be (and actually is) a Minister and not on the front cover of Heat magazine, I am going to say yes it is.
but what if she's done something really unpalatable like expressing a desire to study PPE at Oxford? We have a right to know.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Maybe, maybe not.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
Our energy demands peak December to February.
Solar does still deliver cloudy days, albeit the days are also short too. I think wind has a place.
Hopefully fusion will be on grid in the next thirty years so all will be fine.
We'll definitely have fusion power within 30 years; it's one of life's enduring certainties.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
Since she is looking to be (and actually is) a Minister and not on the front cover of Heat magazine, I am going to say yes it is.
but what if she's done something really unpalatable like studying PPE at Oxford? We have a right to know.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
Apologies for jumping into a dialogue but your assertion only holds true if you don't believe in the existence of inalienable human rights. If you believe that such a concept exists then surely you have to accept that in some capacity people outside of the nation states have the right to sit in judgement if they're broken. Such a discussion was the underpinning of the Nuremberg trials. Of course I'm talking on a philosophical level and not saying that the ECHR has the inalienable right to fulfill that function or that the UK is really ignoring said human rights.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Not that likely, is it.
Something that specific, no.
But there have been moral panics, including in fairly recent history, and the will of the people has been to do some pretty crazy nasty stuff in response.
And stacked courts have too.
I put my faith in voters over institutions.
Hmmm. Historically speaking that doesn't work. Tear down the institutions and then it's like that quote from A Man For All Seasons
"...Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?..."
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
I would vote against that, but would remind you that democracy is the worst solution apart from all others that have been tried.
If a stacked court with an agenda ruled that people had a human right to abuse to death any Stuart in Romford, then you could not even vote against that.
At least if a Parliament passes a bill that I vehemently oppose I can vote to get it repealed. If an undemocratic, unelected court does you have no recourse.
you don't have the foggiest how the ECHR actually operates do you?
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
Since she is looking to be (and actually is) a Minister and not on the front cover of Heat magazine, I am going to say yes it is.
but what if she's done something really unpalatable like studying PPE at Oxford? We have a right to know.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Maybe, maybe not.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
Our energy demands peak December to February.
Solar does still deliver cloudy days, albeit the days are also short too. I think wind has a place.
Hopefully fusion will be on grid in the next thirty years so all will be fine.
We'll definitely have fusion power within 30 years; one of life's enduring certainties.
We have it now: only we've positioned the reactor approximately 93 million miles from earth; therefore minimizing issues with dealing with waste,etc
Looks like the BBC might have an issue with their bias against another world leader.
An analysis of BBC news coverage over the last 4 years shows a shameless bias against Vladimir Putin, with BBC reporters insisting on calling the Special Military Operation in Ukraine “an invasion”
Joking aside, the only British person I've ever hear using Putin's phrase "special military invasion" is the conspiracy theorist @beverleyturner of @GBNEWS
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
I'm entirely indifferent as to her marital status or sexual orientation and it's regrettable it should be a "thing" with and for some.
There may be doubts about her political ability and acumen as Prime Minister and the decisions she take can and no doubt will be scrutinised and criticised but, subject to a General Election, it's down to the Labour Party who they choose to have lead.
We may pass judgement on her time as Prime Minister at a point in the future which was more than we ever got with Liz Truss in all fairness (though, again, to be fair, the voters in her constituency did get an opportunity to say what they thought of her as an MP).
Surely Rayner has an excellent chance of winning the leadership.
It's the classic example of what we've seen so many times before - Party members choose who they personally want, not who the whole electorate wants or who would be best for the country.
But if they do it will surely be a disaster. Imagine Rayner trying to control public spending. Look at the Bond market wobbles we've already had in recent months - if Rayner wins confidence would completely collapse and interest rates would rocket. It will be Truss Mark 2, but even worse.
The question is what will MPs do? 80 MPs is a high threshold. If Starmer doesn't resign and stays in the race you have to think at least 50% of MPs would remain loyal to Starmer. So up to 200 nominations would be up for grabs - which implies only two challengers could get the 80 nominations.
I think that would probably mean Streeting plus one from the soft left - Rayner or Miliband. But then Rayner/Miliband most likely wins - as that's what the members will want.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
More power to her elbow. Why is it any of our business?
She has described herself as a devout Muslim.
She made a compelling argument against assisted dying which had a powerful impact on me.
“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign. I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”
She continued: “It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald. In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.
“Faced with expensive or insufficient care, some may feel they have become too great a burden to their family, friends and society at large. In doing so, they would not be choosing death because that is what they want for themselves but because they think that others might want it for them.”
She has seriously impressed me since she came to the Home Office. And I agree with and respect the points made in your quotes as well. This is a government with at least as great a paucity of talent as the last one and she, and Streeting, really stand out.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Maybe, maybe not.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
Our energy demands peak December to February.
Solar does still deliver cloudy days, albeit the days are also short too. I think wind has a place.
Hopefully fusion will be on grid in the next thirty years so all will be fine.
We'll definitely have fusion power within 30 years; it's one of life's enduring certainties.
Looks like the BBC might have an issue with their bias against another world leader.
An analysis of BBC news coverage over the last 4 years shows a shameless bias against Vladimir Putin, with BBC reporters insisting on calling the Special Military Operation in Ukraine “an invasion”
Joking aside, the only British person I've ever hear using Putin's phrase "special military invasion" is the conspiracy theorist @beverleyturner of @GBNEWS
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
Quite. A perfect excuse to look down on the many workers who produce the dividends and services on which the observer relies.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously The largely unspeaking German prisoners were involved
Yes it was an international court. Judges from France, USSR, Britain and the US.
Mahmood talks like she at least gets “it”, but the jury is out on how effective her proposals will be. I don’t think talking tough in interviews qualifies her to be PM - but results very much will.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If solar plus battery becomes the cheapest (well on the way now surely) then even wind farms, particularly more expensive set ups will become obsolete in time
Yes: wind is a dead end, because its costs are falling at a fraction of the rate of solar.
Maybe, maybe not.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
Our energy demands peak December to February.
Solar does still deliver cloudy days, albeit the days are also short too. I think wind has a place.
Hopefully fusion will be on grid in the next thirty years so all will be fine.
Depends on how cheap solar gets.
In the grottiest winter week in the last twelve months, solar averaged 0.25 GW over 168 hours. The highest demand week we had was 38.3 GW.
It feels unlikely that it's sensible to increase our solar panel acreage 150-fold (that would take us to about 15% of the UK's land area). But that's the extreme, worst-case scenario- and it's within the physicist's "we're within a factor of ten, it'll be fine..." range.
But the thing for both solar and wind is that most of the cost is upfront- especially for solar. Once in place, there is relatively little reason not to just leave them there.
Surely Rayner has an excellent chance of winning the leadership.
It's the classic example of what we've seen so many times before - Party members choose who they personally want, not who the whole electorate wants or who would be best for the country.
But if they do it will surely be a disaster. Imagine Rayner trying to control public spending. Look at the Bond market wobbles we've already had in recent months - if Rayner wins confidence would completely collapse and interest rates would rocket. It will be Truss Mark 2, but even worse.
The question is what will MPs do? 80 MPs is a high threshold. If Starmer doesn't resign and stays in the race you have to think at least 50% of MPs would remain loyal to Starmer. So up to 200 nominations would be up for grabs - which implies only two challengers could get the 80 nominations.
I think that would probably mean Streeting plus one from the soft left - Rayner or Miliband. But then Rayner/Miliband most likely wins - as that's what the members will want.
You're projecting your own imagination on to what Rayner might do.
My imagination leads me to think she might not put too much effort into controlling public spending but she might focus on squeezing the wealthy until the pips squeak, and thus perversely keep the bond markets relatively happy.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
You have to remember that according to Hollywood the Usonians won the Battle of Britain, captured that Enigma-M machine out of a sinking submarine, etc. etc.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously The largely unspeaking German prisoners were involved
Not enough people recognise the genius of how Allo Allo handles language which is that the accent people use denotes what language they are speaking. The two British airmail can't understand Renee because his French accent means he's speaking in French. Constable Crabtree is speaking bad French because of his bad French accent. I often think that it's a surprisingly clever concept for something intended to be risible.
An interesting discussion on David Starkey's Youtube channel introduced a new phrase to me - 'thought-terminating clichés'. The example used was when one says to a scientologist that Xenu does not exist, they call you a 'supressive person'. Such phrases are often used within cults. By strange coincidence, lefties have lots of them. 'Trump'. 'Truss'. 'Russia'. 'Fascism'. 'Climate denialism'. 'Tory'. They stop the spread of wrong thinking like a little poke with an electric cattle prod.
A great line of his when discussing the woke crusaders of various hues.
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
It is brilliant amongst people who are independently wealthy or WFH and don't have to work for a living in offices, but since I have worked for a living in offices my entire flipping life I have worn more lanyards and badges than I care to count!
I’ve always wrapped them around the badge and shoved them in my pocket. No lanyards for me, sir!
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
May i introduce you to the Starkey Thesis: that the UK Parliament has subcontracted so much of its decision-making capacity to other bodies that it now no longer functions. I then point out that leaving the ECHR will not fix this without making MPs realise what their job is.
I think it's important to be technically correct here: the executive has entered into treaties that bind the United Kingdom. Parliament can always pass laws that break said treaties.
Um, in theory yes, but following the HRA judges can declare that a law is incompatible with the ECHR. If this is done before the law is passed it can stop it from being passed, or at least delay it.
IIRC this happened with prisoner votes. It was eventually resolved by the UK but there was a fuss first.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
May i introduce you to the Starkey Thesis: that the UK Parliament has subcontracted so much of its decision-making capacity to other bodies that it now no longer functions. I then point out that leaving the ECHR will not fix this without making MPs realise what their job is.
I think it's important to be technically correct here: the executive has entered into treaties that bind the United Kingdom. Parliament can always pass laws that break said treaties.
Um, in theory yes, but following the HRA judges can declare that a law is incompatible with the ECHR. If this is done before the law is passed it can stop it from being passed, or at least delay it.
IIRC this happened with prisoner votes. It was eventually resolved by the UK but there was a fuss first.
Yes: the government of the day, which commanded the support ofg the House of Commons, chose not to bring a law forward because it was deemed incompatible with the ECHR.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
On Mahmoud, that bellwether of our times, Sean Thomas Knox, has clearly been looking into her. Claims nothing is known of he4vpersonal life, or at least there is nothing to be found on the internet. Is she married, single? Gay, straight? Children, no children?
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
She is a devout Muslim and single I believe.
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
Perhaps she is a devout muslim. Or perhaps we have reached the apogee of equality in Britain: one can lie about being a committed Muslim to appear primeministerial just as surely as one can lie about being a committed Christian for the same purpose.
Strange comment. I rather think being a devout Muslim would not be, on balance, a vote winner - especially with those inclined to Reform. And if it were a lie, she'd be found out in no time.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
In my own very petty way I do get irked by the way that France was treated as one of the victorious powers after the war. I get that the Allies wanted to ensure there would be no threat of them going communist and that they had their old empire as a strong card but find how they were treated as an equal to Britain, The US and Russia in matters such as having judges on the trials and having areas of control in Germany and Austria sticks in the craw.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
Oh me too. Compare France's fate to, say, Poland.
One book I have suggests that the French and Americans nearly came to blows in Northern Italy when the Free French army tried to seize territory occupied by the US forces. (No idea if it's actually true, and please don't tell me if it isn't!)
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
I am not denying that geography exists, I am denying that it is relevant.
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
If you think it is worth being out, then come up with a better argument than saying look Canada isn't in it, chill out guys.
I am not sure if we are in or out, but on the positives for out ...
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
So if a government can get a 50.01 percent vote for the "Collect all the pirates based in the North of England called Bart and force them to cycle round the streets until they drop dead from exhaustion" bill, that's OK, is it?
Yes. It's up to voters to ensure that no such party wins a majority. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. I trust the voters even after the collective idiocy to hand Labour such a big majority. You obviously don't and would prefer an unaccountable and undemocratic foreign court with foreign judges to hold our sovereignty hostage.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
This was nothing to do with my criticism of the Russell Crowe film but am I right in thinking the court was an international one? You were hard put to know that any other nationality than the Americans and obviiously the German prisoners were involved.
Based on the film, you might be forgiven for thinking the Americans were involved in the capture of UB-571 as well
Comments
This is an excellent article by Kamal Ahmed
Shabana Mahmood would make a better Prime Minister than Keir Starmer
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2025/11/16/theres-obviously-superior-choice-for-pm-than-starmer/
Yes, of course
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/eu-accession-echr-questions-and-answers
We have so many really very serious problems to deal with, most of them financial. It would be a shocking and appalling waste of bandwidth in this goldfish world of social media that we live in to spend time on this. A complete distraction from our real problems which are growing ever larger as Reeves proceeds with her incompetence. It is as irrelevant and as pointless as the concept of Scottish Independence is north of the border and you don't get much more moronic than that.
Mahmood is certainly a good performer and communicator.
So is Streeting.
Whether they’d be good PMs remains to be seen but I’m sure they would be better than Burnham, Ed M and the hapless Rayner.
https://quillette.com/2025/11/14/a-journalism-of-deception-bbc-deborah-turness-tim-davie/
It's looks like she did a decent job at Justice, and may well be effective at the Home Office. If she can thread the multiple needles on immigration, she will be in a strong position in 2028 or so. But it's much much much too early to say whether she would make a good PM. And this fast-tracking of relatively untried newbies up the ladder is one of the key reasons they fail so reliably.
It happened to Rishi, it's happening to Kemi, and the response of some on the right is to put forward Katie Lam as the next human to throw into the mincing machine.
Is it possible to have human rights in the ECHR? YES.
Is it possible to have human rights out of the ECHR? YES.
Therefore for the UK voters it is a political choice, no more, no less. Geography does not change that.
If we choose to leave, we will be a free, Parliamentary democracy outside the ECHR just like multiple other ones around the globe.
That we would be the only European one may be an interesting quirk for a pub quiz, but not meaningful.
Whilst we are on the subject of there being 'no point', your arguments for remaining part of the court are thin gruel at best.
'Make us something of a pariah' - gosh, someone cover the children's ears. A 'pariah' with who exactly? Le Monde? The Frankfurter Allgemeine? Will their be clucks of disapproval over morning coffee in Brussels? The argument is completely unserious.
Who says we will need a 'British code of human rights'? Before we had the ECHR we had centuries of common law that protected the rights of individuals far better than they were protected on the Continent where the Napoleonic code predominated.
https://x.com/willsommer/status/1989820308459823133
Tough crowd on X:
I’ll allow it, as long as they don’t breed.
https://x.com/sidmacleod/status/1990042779372982408
Choosing to be in, or choosing to be out, are both perfectly valid choices.
And there are democracies around the globe in, and out.
If you think it is worth being in, then come up with a better argument than comparing us to who is out, as who is out is the entire bloody planet beyond our continent.
https://archive.clivejames.com/books/voices-pit.htm
https://archive.clivejames.com/books/twain.htm
We already have Parliament and a Supreme Court. And multiple global rights conventions.
If we leave, the purpose would be to restore Parliament as the ultimate arbiter of our laws.
Ipso Mori has her at 11%
Mahmood and Streeting certainly have done themselves no harm and unless Starmer and Reeves can conjure a miracle one or both are likely to be out of office by May 26
The key thing is that all the excitement about Brexit has left a porous border between the UK and the EU, along the Eire/Northern Ireland border. That has been a massive PITA to resolve when it has been about the movement of sandwiches. Furthermore, most of the resolution has been in the form of the UK shadowing EU rules.
Now imagine doing the same thing for human rights. There are the same options as before- NI aligns with ECHR-land and there's an Irish Sea border, or NI decouples from ECHR-land and aligns with Great Britain. Either of them might be technically possible, but neither of those look very pretty to me. Indeed, if we are talking about people, not stuff, the issues are starker.
As for the less tangible point- although people are people everywhere, the challenges of living together look different in different places and with different histories. In terms of our proximity to each other, the relative lack of empty land to just bugger off to, the long shadows of the wars that various European countries have fought against each other and empires created and dissolved... the versions of the "how shall we live together" questions we have to answer in Europe have a different tone to those in other countries, parliamentary democracies or not.
Besides- let's name the elephant in the room here. The pressure to disapply the ECHR and replace it with something else is not from people who want to add to the text. It's from people who would like to remove or weaken aspects of the Convention.
"...In sober moments, we know that the Constitution of the United States would mean nothing without the laws that grow out of it and back it up. Without them, the rights it promulgates would be no better guaranteed than those enshrined in the old Soviet Constitution, a document that, as the dissident sociologist Alexander Zinoviev suggested, was published only in order to find out who agreed with it, so that they could be dealt with..."
https://archive.clivejames.com/books/twain.htm
LR won only 1 seat in the first round but an extra 38 seats in the second round last year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_election#Results
It would be interesting to think of PB equivalents - "MRDA" springs to mind?
In a recent Yougov Labour members poll ' Wes Streeting beats Shabana Mahmood and Ed Miliband, but would lose to Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper. Ms Mahmood would lose to Mr Miliband and Ms Cooper. And Ms Cooper would beat Mr Miliband.'
https://news.sky.com/story/almost-two-in-three-labour-members-back-burnham-over-starmer-for-leader-poll-show-13441078
Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of our laws. That is democracy.
Your turn.
For me I would prefer to remain in the ECHR, but not at any price and if reclusing from parts on immigration means the matter can be addressed than so be it
It is clear Mahmood is moving to amend the ECHR, as are member states of the EU but the changes will be slow and the political move is for action now
The immigration issue has to be addressed by whatever means otherwise Reform and Farage will walk into Downing Street at the next GE
I’m all for keeping private lives private but is it tenable to have nothing out there about your affairs?
Who labour elect to succeed Starmer is an open question and when
Their opinions are the “affectations of the lanyard wearing class”.
Brilliant.
We have a lot more wind in December to February than sunshine.
Our energy demands peak December to February.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMbRv6aaQrs
None of these, including the ones Lucky quoted, are thought-terminating though as Lucky himself demonstrates by his regular, robust (if misguided) defence of Truss.
Hopefully fusion will be on grid in the next thirty years so all will be fine.
If a stacked court with an agenda ruled that people had a human right to abuse to death any Stuart in Romford, then you could not even vote against that.
At least if a Parliament passes a bill that I vehemently oppose I can vote to get it repealed. If an undemocratic, unelected court does you have no recourse.
"Though terminating cliche" falls into the same category.
It's not entirely surprising that Lucky didn't include any of those in his list.
One could also call them mental shortcuts; heuristics which mean we don't have to repeat the entirety of the same argument every time we make a point, of course.
But there have been moral panics, including in fairly recent history, and the will of the people has been to do some pretty crazy nasty stuff in response.
Actually, several there.
I put my faith in voters over institutions.
It's a cultural attitude - the "Living Law" interpretation vs emphasis on changes in law to create new rights.
For example, not long ago, a UK court created the idea that "family members" aren't just relatives, people you married or related to people you married.
She made a compelling argument against assisted dying which had a powerful impact on me.
“Sadly, recent scandals – such as Hillsborough, infected blood and the Post Office Horizon – have reminded us that the state and those acting on its behalf are not always benign. I have always held the view that, for this reason, the state should serve a clear role. It should protect and preserve life, not take it away. The state should never offer death as a service.”
She continued: “It cannot be overstated what a profound shift in our culture assisted suicide will herald. In my view, the greatest risk of all is the pressure the elderly, vulnerable, sick or disabled may place upon themselves.
“Faced with expensive or insufficient care, some may feel they have become too great a burden to their family, friends and society at large. In doing so, they would not be choosing death because that is what they want for themselves but because they think that others might want it for them.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/23/uk-justice-secretary-attacks-assisted-dying-bill-as-state-death-service
'In a 2024 interview with Gabriel Pogrund of The Sunday Times, Mahmood was described as a "devout Muslim". She said, "My faith is the centrepoint of my life and it drives me to public service, it drives me in the way that I live my life and I see my life.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabana_Mahmood#LGBT_issues
"...Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?..."
An analysis of BBC news coverage over the last 4 years shows a shameless bias against Vladimir Putin, with BBC reporters insisting on calling the Special Military Operation in Ukraine “an invasion”
https://x.com/haveigotnews/status/1988283810014969947
Joking aside, the only British person I've ever hear using Putin's phrase "special military invasion" is the conspiracy theorist @beverleyturner of @GBNEWS
https://x.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1990032913480491048
There may be doubts about her political ability and acumen as Prime Minister and the decisions she take can and no doubt will be scrutinised and criticised but, subject to a General Election, it's down to the Labour Party who they choose to have lead.
We may pass judgement on her time as Prime Minister at a point in the future which was more than we ever got with Liz Truss in all fairness (though, again, to be fair, the voters in her constituency did get an opportunity to say what they thought of her as an MP).
It's the classic example of what we've seen so many times before - Party members choose who they personally want, not who the whole electorate wants or who would be best for the country.
But if they do it will surely be a disaster. Imagine Rayner trying to control public spending. Look at the Bond market wobbles we've already had in recent months - if Rayner wins confidence would completely collapse and interest rates would rocket. It will be Truss Mark 2, but even worse.
The question is what will MPs do? 80 MPs is a high threshold. If Starmer doesn't resign and stays in the race you have to think at least 50% of MPs would remain loyal to Starmer. So up to 200 nominations would be up for grabs - which implies only two challengers could get the 80 nominations.
I think that would probably mean Streeting plus one from the soft left - Rayner or Miliband. But then Rayner/Miliband most likely wins - as that's what the members will want.
Also, it's WHAT IS ON THE LANYARD THAT MATTERS. It's the commentators who consistently miss that.
And those commentators are the first to howl at breaches of security in private and public sectors. Security on which the lanyard badge is an imperfect, but valuable, element. I've had to stop and interrogate people without an obvious lanyard and badge and insist that I see the badges; and the many doors with electronic locks provide another layer, as one needs swipe cards (and a suspicious mentality when strangers try to slip in after one).
In the grottiest winter week in the last twelve months, solar averaged 0.25 GW over 168 hours. The highest demand week we had was 38.3 GW.
It feels unlikely that it's sensible to increase our solar panel acreage 150-fold (that would take us to about 15% of the UK's land area). But that's the extreme, worst-case scenario- and it's within the physicist's "we're within a factor of ten, it'll be fine..." range.
But the thing for both solar and wind is that most of the cost is upfront- especially for solar. Once in place, there is relatively little reason not to just leave them there.
Which makes Reform's stated policy curious.
My imagination leads me to think she might not put too much effort into controlling public spending but she might focus on squeezing the wealthy until the pips squeak, and thus perversely keep the bond markets relatively happy.
- Iona Nikitchenko (Soviet Union)
- Geoffrey Lawrence (UK)
- Francis Biddle (US)
- Donnedieu de Vabres (France)
Deputy judges (who could not vote)- Alexander Volchkov (Soviet Union),
- William Birkett (UK),
- John J. Parker (US)
- Robert Falco (France).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trialsIIRC this happened with prisoner votes. It was eventually resolved by the UK but there was a fuss first.
De Gaulle’s ingratitude and clear dislike for the UK and US after the war simply rubs salt in the wound.
That does not invalidate anything I wrote.