I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
I am live at my Camden by-election count, postal votes being checked, mood tense.
Some early talk that the independent might do well. He was endorsed by the Green who was elected and disqualified in May, but who had then fallen out with the party. The indie had also had support from the Camden People's Alliance, a Your Party-adjacent grouping.
However, it's probably more likely to be a showdown between the Greens and Labour.
Turnout low, but what do you expect in this heat?
The greatest drama so far was actually when someone turned the lights off by mistake.
22% turnout, but who can blame the electorate in this heat for not coming out!
I got 51 votes and last place - woo!
And the winner was... Labour! In the end it was pretty close between Labour, Green 2nd and the independent 3rd. The indie cost the Greens the seat. I think most of those indie votes would've been Green if he hadn't stood and then they would've walked it.
Tories 4th, Reform 5th. The Tories were happy to reverse the order between them and Reform in the ward from May. The Tories at the count were very nice. I don't think Reform turned up!
22% turnout, but who can blame the electorate in this heat for not coming out!
I got 51 votes and last place - woo!
And the winner was... Labour! In the end it was pretty close between Labour, Green 2nd and the independent 3rd. The indie cost the Greens the seat. I think most of those indie votes would've been Green if he hadn't stood and then they would've walked it.
Tories 4th, Reform 5th. The Tories were happy to reverse the order between them and Reform in the ward from May. The Tories at the count were very nice. I don't think Reform turned up!
You... stood for Reform?
It came as a surprise to me too.
Don’t let the wrong one in, though you never can tell sometimes.
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
Bizarre timing.
It's also Net zero, not gross zero - you might be a DAC optimist, or want to bring back the Caledonian Rainforest. Or you might want to achieve it purely from a National Security perspective, or because of other negative effects like air pollution. You might want to get almost all done by 2040, but reach zero in 2060.
On ECHR - you might be like me and support the underlying principles, but think it and the Refugee Convention should be radically reformed to reflect the 21st Century.
A simple thought experiment will show you why this can happen: Suppose a school has 120 students in four 4th grade classes. The school hires two new teachers and reduces average class sizes from 30 to 20. The two new teachers are learning their jobs, and so 40 of the students get poorer teaching, while the other 80 may get slightly better teaching. And perhaps the two new teachers never improve much. (There is not an unlimited supply of good teachers in the US; I don't know what the situation is in the UK.)
Something like this happened in the US as discrimination against women decreased since WW II. Capable young women, who might have been teachers in earlier decades, instead went into business, law, science, and other fields. Class sizes were reduced, but achievement did not improve much, especially in schools outside the old South.
(For the record: To avoid the draft during Vietnam I taught for a few years in a Chicago grade school. We had only one full-time police officer; a nearby high school had four.)
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
During a record breaking heatwave, she decides to make Climate Change denial a central strategy.
I think a message that Net Zero policies are unrealistic, too costly, and do not have the global impact to make them a proportionate solution, could be reasonably popular without being pitched as absolute climate denialism. But purely on optics bringing it up on a normal or even cool day would probably be better.
Accepting climate change, accepting that the UK can’t single handedly stop it, and that we need to mitigate its effects, by protecting from flooding, encouraging air conditioning and making homes and workplaces more resilient, may win more votes than hairshirt Green policies.
It is like accepting infectious disease but rejecting as a policy any behavioural change or public intervention to prevent it. It is illogical and totally stupid. As such. typical of the deeply unserious Kemi Badenoch.
Andy Burnham urged to scrap income tax and NI in radical fiscal overhaul Economists including Jim O’Neill write open letter calling for single levy to replace six key taxes to raise money for public services ... Prosperity 2030 suggests replacing six key taxes, including income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and national insurance contributions, with a single levy. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/09/andy-burnham-scrap-income-tax-national-insurance-fiscal-overhaul
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
Bizarre timing.
It's also Net zero, not gross zero - you might be a DAC optimist, or want to bring back the Caledonian Rainforest. Or you might want to achieve it purely from a National Security perspective, or because of other negative effects like air pollution. You might want to get almost all done by 2040, but reach zero in 2060.
On ECHR - you might be like me and support the underlying principles, but think it and the Refugee Convention should be radically reformed to reflect the 21st Century.
Badenoch is the most frustrating politician.
The challenge I would make to those who agree with the principles of ECHR but not the specifics, is what specifically do you want changed?
My question to the likes of Badenoch (not yourself obviously) - what is it about human rights you don't like?
Reform byelection campaign risks a replay of the Johnson error In triggering an entirely optional byelection, Nigel Farage has given opponents weeks to repeat the claims about his finances ... If there is one lesson from the Johnson era, it is this: the public is largely relaxed about sleaze allegations against politicians until they are suddenly not; protestations about witch hunts and the deep state are indulged until they are suddenly not.
A surprisingly inconsequential article by Polly Filla.
What is not mentioned is something JRM pointed out, that the PSC process limits what Farage can say publicly in his defence. If so, Farage has compounded this problem by lengthening the time in which his critics can make hay before the PSC's verdict is delivered.
Grid operator issues fresh heatwave warning over power supplies ... ...
The warning marks a reversal in the traditional pattern of pressure on the UK’s energy system, which normally is placed under higher strain when households need heating during winter.
But hotter weather in the summer months has increased usage of air conditioning units and fans meaning that pressure is becoming a year-round phenomenon.
Increased usage has also collided with a dampening of supply. Low wind speeds have rendered many of the UK’s fleet of wind farms redundant, increasing the country’s reliance on domestic gas-fired power stations, nuclear plants and expensive imported energy.
According to live National Grid data, wind power contributed to just 6.6 per cent per cent of Britain’s electricity mix on Wednesday. During the day, the country’s growing number of solar farms help supplement the collapse in supply from turbines. But in the evenings and through the night, the grid has been forced to lean heavily on fossil fuels and expensive foreign-generated energy from neighbouring countries. https://www.cityam.com/grid-operator-issues-fresh-heatwave-warning-over-power-supplies/
Grid operator issues fresh heatwave warning over power supplies ... ...
The warning marks a reversal in the traditional pattern of pressure on the UK’s energy system, which normally is placed under higher strain when households need heating during winter.
But hotter weather in the summer months has increased usage of air conditioning units and fans meaning that pressure is becoming a year-round phenomenon.
Increased usage has also collided with a dampening of supply. Low wind speeds have rendered many of the UK’s fleet of wind farms redundant, increasing the country’s reliance on domestic gas-fired power stations, nuclear plants and expensive imported energy.
According to live National Grid data, wind power contributed to just 6.6 per cent per cent of Britain’s electricity mix on Wednesday. During the day, the country’s growing number of solar farms help supplement the collapse in supply from turbines. But in the evenings and through the night, the grid has been forced to lean heavily on fossil fuels and expensive foreign-generated energy from neighbouring countries. https://www.cityam.com/grid-operator-issues-fresh-heatwave-warning-over-power-supplies/
All while the tide comes in and the tide goes out, undimmed...
Since I’ve retired I’ve come to hate Bank Holidays
Let the workers work.
You are not alone. Should 18-24 63% Should not 23% Should 25-49 63% Should not 26% Should 50-65 45% Should not 43% Should 65+ 28% Should not 57%
The old hate the young. Sums up British politics.
I still think it's hilarious that the Tories have spent their entire existence as a political party warning of the danger of poor people voting for the government to give them other people's money and then George Osborne implements the pension triple lock to do exactly that, but the pensioners that benefit are now mostly voting for a party that better expresses their visceral hatred for the young.
The young hate the old which is amusing because they forget that, if they are lucky, they will be old at some point themselves.
It comes sooner than expected. Where have the last forty years gone?
My feeling exactly. I am 61 on Sunday and still think I am 20. Sadly my body takes great pleasure in reminding me that is not the case.
I am 50 and can still do anything except I regularly do my back in putting my socks on.
Yes, know the feeling. I have to sit on the stairs to put on my socks (and sandals, of course!)
Yesterday, noticed a fan I'd been considering for my desk was available again. £65, or £75 Amazon. Watched a little video about it (amusingly, the YouTube comments pointed out being fancier did mean more points of failure). Vid was '1 year old' which is YT talk for 1-2 years, for those unaware.
End was comparing prices, and this was £30 then. So it looks rather gougingly priced. May end up getting a new desk fan, old one broke, but I'd rather not be financially abused if I can help it.
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
This isn't new. Badenoch has said that they've done the work, this is party policy, so why would they rule in candidates who disagree with it?
How on earth can you be a broad church party if you are blocking people from standing who disagree on some of your policies.
Rhodes Boyson would pop up on the radio or tv every few months demanding the stocks were brought back or the death penalty or the birch for litter louts but Thatch didn't block him from being a candidate.
Why is the election of MPs who do not agree with key party policy a good thing? How can the Tories commit to something and put that to the electorate whilst knowingly choosing candidates who are opposed to it? This is precisely why the party is despised and distrusted - a large caucus of MPs weren't Tories and stood in the way of implementing sound policies. If the electorate adores the ECHR or dislikes having an economy, let them reject the Tories at the ballot box.
Yesterday, noticed a fan I'd been considering for my desk was available again. £65, or £75 Amazon. Watched a little video about it (amusingly, the YouTube comments pointed out being fancier did mean more points of failure). Vid was '1 year old' which is YT talk for 1-2 years, for those unaware.
End was comparing prices, and this was £30 then. So it looks rather gougingly priced. May end up getting a new desk fan, old one broke, but I'd rather not be financially abused if I can help it.
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
Bizarre timing.
It's also Net zero, not gross zero - you might be a DAC optimist, or want to bring back the Caledonian Rainforest. Or you might want to achieve it purely from a National Security perspective, or because of other negative effects like air pollution. You might want to get almost all done by 2040, but reach zero in 2060.
On ECHR - you might be like me and support the underlying principles, but think it and the Refugee Convention should be radically reformed to reflect the 21st Century.
Badenoch is the most frustrating politician.
The challenge I would make to those who agree with the principles of ECHR but not the specifics, is what specifically do you want changed?
My question to the likes of Badenoch (not yourself obviously) - what is it about human rights you don't like?
Personally I don't agree with the principles. In Britain, we had ancient liberties upon which the Government did not encroach, not a general all-purpose encroachment from which we needed to be given back some 'rights'.
There is a fundamental issue with the idea of applying universal 'human rights' - it gives non-citizens the same rights as citizens, effectively making everyone in the world our Government's responsibility. That is disastrous for immigration and disastrously undermines defence - look at the cases relating to Northern Ireland and Iraq. How can a soldier follow orders if they think they'll be legally liable for infringing the enemy's rights in a few years?
That's before you even get to the actual court's invasive interpretation of its own remit.
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
Bizarre timing.
It's also Net zero, not gross zero - you might be a DAC optimist, or want to bring back the Caledonian Rainforest. Or you might want to achieve it purely from a National Security perspective, or because of other negative effects like air pollution. You might want to get almost all done by 2040, but reach zero in 2060.
On ECHR - you might be like me and support the underlying principles, but think it and the Refugee Convention should be radically reformed to reflect the 21st Century.
Badenoch is the most frustrating politician.
The challenge I would make to those who agree with the principles of ECHR but not the specifics, is what specifically do you want changed?
My question to the likes of Badenoch (not yourself obviously) - what is it about human rights you don't like?
Personally I don't agree with the principles. In Britain, we had ancient liberties upon which the Government did not encroach, not a general all-purpose encroachment from which we needed to be given back some 'rights'.
There is a fundamental issue with the idea of applying universal 'human rights' - it gives non-citizens the same rights as citizens, effectively making everyone in the world our Government's responsibility. That is disastrous for immigration and disastrously undermines defence - look at the cases relating to Northern Ireland and Iraq. How can a soldier follow orders if they think they'll be legally liable for infringing the enemy's rights in a few years?
That's before you even get to the actual court's invasive interpretation of its own remit.
I do agree with the principles but the last point highlights the difficulty that has arisen. Take Article 3:
"“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
So, James Bond clearly had a case in Casino Royale. Who could argue with that?
But the result was for several years it was difficult to extradite prisoners to countries like Poland because their prisons did not meet some minimum standards in terms of cell size, overcrowding and cleanliness. I personally was involved in a case where this was argued in respect of the USA on the basis that their prisons are simply too dangerous and there is an unacceptable risk of sexual violence (the defence failed).
Now, you could argue that this type of ruling puts pressure on the country seeking the extradition to improve the standards of their prisons which was ultimately what happened in respect of Poland. But in the meantime it gives us the problem of what to do with the criminal who is in this country. And I really struggle to see how square footage of a prison cell can be found in the wording of Article 3. It is the decisions of the court putting meat on the bones of "degrading" that extend the scope of the rights far beyond what was contemplated.
A simple thought experiment will show you why this can happen: Suppose a school has 120 students in four 4th grade classes. The school hires two new teachers and reduces average class sizes from 30 to 20. The two new teachers are learning their jobs, and so 40 of the students get poorer teaching, while the other 80 may get slightly better teaching. And perhaps the two new teachers never improve much. (There is not an unlimited supply of good teachers in the US; I don't know what the situation is in the UK.)
Something like this happened in the US as discrimination against women decreased since WW II. Capable young women, who might have been teachers in earlier decades, instead went into business, law, science, and other fields. Class sizes were reduced, but achievement did not improve much, especially in schools outside the old South.
(For the record: To avoid the draft during Vietnam I taught for a few years in a Chicago grade school. We had only one full-time police officer; a nearby high school had four.)
To which statement there is a very easy answer - the largest groups are top sets composed of the ablest and most determined students who are the least disruptive and most likely to progress at least some distance without massive teacher input (although they would get further if they had more).
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
Bizarre timing.
It's also Net zero, not gross zero - you might be a DAC optimist, or want to bring back the Caledonian Rainforest. Or you might want to achieve it purely from a National Security perspective, or because of other negative effects like air pollution. You might want to get almost all done by 2040, but reach zero in 2060.
On ECHR - you might be like me and support the underlying principles, but think it and the Refugee Convention should be radically reformed to reflect the 21st Century.
Badenoch is the most frustrating politician.
The challenge I would make to those who agree with the principles of ECHR but not the specifics, is what specifically do you want changed?
My question to the likes of Badenoch (not yourself obviously) - what is it about human rights you don't like?
Personally I don't agree with the principles. In Britain, we had ancient liberties upon which the Government did not encroach, not a general all-purpose encroachment from which we needed to be given back some 'rights'.
There is a fundamental issue with the idea of applying universal 'human rights' - it gives non-citizens the same rights as citizens, effectively making everyone in the world our Government's responsibility. That is disastrous for immigration and disastrously undermines defence - look at the cases relating to Northern Ireland and Iraq. How can a soldier follow orders if they think they'll be legally liable for infringing the enemy's rights in a few years?
That's before you even get to the actual court's invasive interpretation of its own remit.
Never commented upon because virtually no-one noticed but the most egregious example of fake rights was "The Right To Roam" given in the 2001 CROW, Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
This was an example of everything which was wrong with that government and I suspect if he had understood it Blair himself would have opposed it. First of all they set up the Aunt Sally premise that you couldn't wander anywhere in England because it was "trespass". Well, that was bullshit. Trespass is entering land owned by another and causing damage. It was / is a civil tort and the owner was / is entitled to compensation of damages and costs. Thus if like Theresa May you wandered through the corn fields then you were liable for the value of the corn, not necessarily insignificant. But wandering on the high fells, very difficult to cause any measurable damage so actually very hard to commit trespass.
Add in a lot of bullshit about the Mass Trespass on Calder Spout in the 1930s and you have a typical Liberal fake wrong and what does a fake wrong need, a fake right, in both senses. (BTW the gamekeepers tried to stop the Calder Spout Mass Trespass as it was intent upon disturbing the grouse and other ground nesting birds and as such causing some damage.)
Thus the Right to Road was enacted, a bureaucrat's wet dream, inconvenient. Clearly if as originally aspired to it would have involved walking everywhere no matter how harmful. Those Labour grandees who had bought donkey fields as a tax dodge were unhappy so all land outside moorland was exempted. There was an attempt to make the owner of the land liable if you jumped off a cliff which didn't have warning signs on. I personally scuppered that. So you now have a legal right to walk on all moorland in England provided you do no damage, exactly the same as you had a hundred years ago except now you are excluded from a lot of places you could have gone on 100 years ago. Thus the "Right To Roam" is but a pale imitation of the common law right to go wherever you chose.
The glee with which the establishment have endorsed Binface shows how intellectually bankrupt they are imo.
It's really getting to you. You'll need a lie down if this continues.
Anyone here actively (physically) campaigning for Reform. Canvassing? Leafleting? Speaking? Committee member of a local party? Though in what should be a target constituency - old, white, well off - there are no signs of them on the ground here.
I mean, honestly, this is just plain daft. Just when the bien pensants start to think maybe she has something she goes back to being mad as a mad thing:
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 8m Badenoch says she is ruling out as candidates anyone who supports ECHR or Net Zero. That could problems with some existing MPs.
So what if a dozen or so of your own MPs are arguing about the precise details of Net Zero - maybe 2050, maybe 2040 etc etc?
Bonkers.
This isn't new. Badenoch has said that they've done the work, this is party policy, so why would they rule in candidates who disagree with it?
How on earth can you be a broad church party if you are blocking people from standing who disagree on some of your policies.
Rhodes Boyson would pop up on the radio or tv every few months demanding the stocks were brought back or the death penalty or the birch for litter louts but Thatch didn't block him from being a candidate.
Why is the election of MPs who do not agree with key party policy a good thing? How can the Tories commit to something and put that to the electorate whilst knowingly choosing candidates who are opposed to it? This is precisely why the party is despised and distrusted - a large caucus of MPs weren't Tories and stood in the way of implementing sound policies. If the electorate adores the ECHR or dislikes having an economy, let them reject the Tories at the ballot box.
As I said, it’s a policy designed to appeal to climate change deniers.
Firstly, it's amazing how much of an outlier 1976 was. It still has the record for this metric, of 20 days of at least 30C at Heathrow. But it was followed by six consecutive years without a single day reaching 30C. It's now been 18 years since a year without the temperature reaching 30C at Heathrow, 2008.
That is presumably an old article, as I think we are up to 13 this year. We could easily break the 1976 total given the forecast but it won't look anything like as much of an outlier now.
35.5C at Wisley today.
It says, "as of May 30th." QC systems for meteorological data are old and slow, because it's not an exciting thing for young scientists to work on, or for the Met Office to wrangle money out of government for. The last time I looked at this (in 2013, but I'd be surprised if it has changed since then), the QC on temperature data from British weather stations happened once a month, so I'd guess that the quality-controlled data for June is only recently available, or soon will be.
Comments
We need to ultimately get to Net Zero, or as close to it as practical.
Bankrupting ourselves to do it by law by 2050, regardless of economic or technological feasibility, is another matter.
Between every election you're like this and, come polling day, you always vote Lib Dem or Labour.
Don’t let the wrong one in, though you never can tell sometimes.
Economists including Jim O’Neill write open letter calling for single levy to replace six key taxes to raise money for public services
...
Prosperity 2030 suggests replacing six key taxes, including income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and national insurance contributions, with a single levy.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/09/andy-burnham-scrap-income-tax-national-insurance-fiscal-overhaul
My question to the likes of Badenoch (not yourself obviously) - what is it about human rights you don't like?
In triggering an entirely optional byelection, Nigel Farage has given opponents weeks to repeat the claims about his finances
...
If there is one lesson from the Johnson era, it is this: the public is largely relaxed about sleaze allegations against politicians until they are suddenly not; protestations about witch hunts and the deep state are indulged until they are suddenly not.
Sometimes the decisive factor is a single fact that sticks, but other times it is sheer repetition. In triggering an entirely optional byelection, Farage has given his opponents several more weeks to repeat the allegations about his finances.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/09/reform-byelection-campaign-risks-a-replay-of-the-johnson-error
A surprisingly inconsequential article by Polly Filla.
What is not mentioned is something JRM pointed out, that the PSC process limits what Farage can say publicly in his defence. If so, Farage has compounded this problem by lengthening the time in which his critics can make hay before the PSC's verdict is delivered.
Labour could be left with just 27 MPs in the capital, according to the new survey
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/green-party-zack-polanski-london-general-election-poll-reform-uk-b1289326.html
Electoral Calculus.
...
...
The warning marks a reversal in the traditional pattern of pressure on the UK’s energy system, which normally is placed under higher strain when households need heating during winter.
But hotter weather in the summer months has increased usage of air conditioning units and fans meaning that pressure is becoming a year-round phenomenon.
Increased usage has also collided with a dampening of supply. Low wind speeds have rendered many of the UK’s fleet of wind farms redundant, increasing the country’s reliance on domestic gas-fired power stations, nuclear plants and expensive imported energy.
According to live National Grid data, wind power contributed to just 6.6 per cent per cent of Britain’s electricity mix on Wednesday. During the day, the country’s growing number of solar farms help supplement the collapse in supply from turbines. But in the evenings and through the night, the grid has been forced to lean heavily on fossil fuels and expensive foreign-generated energy from neighbouring countries.
https://www.cityam.com/grid-operator-issues-fresh-heatwave-warning-over-power-supplies/
...
According to reports, Linehan received £25,000 in the settlement.
https://www.itv.com/news/2026-07-09/graham-linehan-receives-settlement-from-met-over-arrest-for-social-media-posts
- Source close to Kremlin says "high probability" of escalation in coming months
- Putin sees full Donbas control as essential victory, source says
- Kyiv says intelligence shows Putin preparing new operations, possibly beyond Ukraine
- Drone strikes on refineries and ports have triggered severe Russian fuel shortages
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-likely-escalate-ukraine-war-despite-trump-peace-push-sources-say-2026-07-09/ (£££)Binface poster slogan, that I may have read elsewhere.
"Make your vote Count"
Yesterday, noticed a fan I'd been considering for my desk was available again. £65, or £75 Amazon. Watched a little video about it (amusingly, the YouTube comments pointed out being fancier did mean more points of failure). Vid was '1 year old' which is YT talk for 1-2 years, for those unaware.
End was comparing prices, and this was £30 then. So it looks rather gougingly priced. May end up getting a new desk fan, old one broke, but I'd rather not be financially abused if I can help it.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3360069/china-recovers-long-march-10b-reusable-rocket-maiden-launch
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-burnham-starmer-labour-tories-badenoch-farage-12593360
There is a fundamental issue with the idea of applying universal 'human rights' - it gives non-citizens the same rights as citizens, effectively making everyone in the world our Government's responsibility. That is disastrous for immigration and disastrously undermines defence - look at the cases relating to Northern Ireland and Iraq. How can a soldier follow orders if they think they'll be legally liable for infringing the enemy's rights in a few years?
That's before you even get to the actual court's invasive interpretation of its own remit.
LD: 41.7% (+26.4)
GRN: 35.0% (-12.5)
LAB: 15.1% (-7.8)
CON: 4.3% (-3.1)
RFM: 2.6% (-4.2)
CPA: 1.3% (New)
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Green.
NEW THREAD
"“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
So, James Bond clearly had a case in Casino Royale. Who could argue with that?
But the result was for several years it was difficult to extradite prisoners to countries like Poland because their prisons did not meet some minimum standards in terms of cell size, overcrowding and cleanliness. I personally was involved in a case where this was argued in respect of the USA on the basis that their prisons are simply too dangerous and there is an unacceptable risk of sexual violence (the defence failed).
Now, you could argue that this type of ruling puts pressure on the country seeking the extradition to improve the standards of their prisons which was ultimately what happened in respect of Poland. But in the meantime it gives us the problem of what to do with the criminal who is in this country. And I really struggle to see how square footage of a prison cell can be found in the wording of Article 3. It is the decisions of the court putting meat on the bones of "degrading" that extend the scope of the rights far beyond what was contemplated.
There is a reason for this...
This was an example of everything which was wrong with that government and I suspect if he had understood it Blair himself would have opposed it. First of all they set up the Aunt Sally premise that you couldn't wander anywhere in England because it was "trespass". Well, that was bullshit. Trespass is entering land owned by another and causing damage. It was / is a civil tort and the owner was / is entitled to compensation of damages and costs. Thus if like Theresa May you wandered through the corn fields then you were liable for the value of the corn, not necessarily insignificant. But wandering on the high fells, very difficult to cause any measurable damage so actually very hard to commit trespass.
Add in a lot of bullshit about the Mass Trespass on Calder Spout in the 1930s and you have a typical Liberal fake wrong and what does a fake wrong need, a fake right, in both senses. (BTW the gamekeepers tried to stop the Calder Spout Mass Trespass as it was intent upon disturbing the grouse and other ground nesting birds and as such causing some damage.)
Thus the Right to Road was enacted, a bureaucrat's wet dream, inconvenient. Clearly if as originally aspired to it would have involved walking everywhere no matter how harmful. Those Labour grandees who had bought donkey fields as a tax dodge were unhappy so all land outside moorland was exempted. There was an attempt to make the owner of the land liable if you jumped off a cliff which didn't have warning signs on. I personally scuppered that. So you now have a legal right to walk on all moorland in England provided you do no damage, exactly the same as you had a hundred years ago except now you are excluded from a lot of places you could have gone on 100 years ago. Thus the "Right To Roam" is but a pale imitation of the common law right to go wherever you chose.
Anyone here actively (physically) campaigning for Reform. Canvassing? Leafleting? Speaking? Committee member of a local party? Though in what should be a target constituency - old, white, well off - there are no signs of them on the ground here.