My view: the demographics facts combined with the political fallout of Brexit mean that we're probably 80%+ certain to lose the next GE whatever.
So, I want the most technically competent and resilient PM possible to steer us through and out the other side.
We'll then have to pick up whatever mess Corbyn/McDonnell makes and fix that thereafter, hopefully after only 5 years, but it might be 10 years sadly.
That for me gives two choices to replace TM: Jeremy Hunt, and Michael Gove.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
I agree that May should go. She's uninspiring, lacking in ambition and just unlucky - I have always been a bit MEH about her. In the modern era you need someone who can project warmth and emotional intelligence and she has neither. David Davies and Boris would both be better chairpeople, fronting the govt.
But I disagree on Corbyn. If Labour reached a GE with a realistic chance of winning under Corbyn their vote would nosedive. I genuinely don't think anybody - other than a handful of left wing nihilists - want him and McDonnell running the country. I'd bet my house on it he'll never ever be PM of the UK.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
What if they didn't act alone? Surely it's worth investigating for that reason.
Sure. But we could just dip sample the population and investigate constantly on that basis. How much crime would be detected if we just investigated 1% of the population in general every year.
Not the same at all. The police have evidence that a crime occurred. They cannot presume to know all about it and who else might be implicated, so they have no choice to investigate it IMO. Surely we don't believe that criminals should get off, because what they did happened long ago.
I had my car vandalised and was given a crime reference number and told to ask neighbouring businesses if they had any CCTV that covered it because the Police wouldn't investigate without CCTV. The Police wouldn't even look for the CCTV themselves, I had to find out if the CCTV existed and get back in touch if I could find it.
I had my home burgled once and the Police again didn't investigate.
I had my home burgled another time and caught the burglar in the act (I chased him physically out of my house) and got the licence plate of the car he drove off in. The Police only investigated because I had the licence plate.
Unless you're a celebrity or murdered the Police investigation of most crimes is "do you know who did this and can you prove it without us investigating further".
This is probably a good thing for the UK. The Tories may wish to protect rich landowners but I don't see why the rest of us should have to pay for higher food costs to benefit them. If left wing coal miners have to accept market principles I don't see why Tory interest groups get to opt out.
@Jonathan #1 Do we know the police have " evidence that a crime occured " ? All they've said is they might have interviewed Heath under caution. That's different. #2 There is no evidential threshold for investigating at all. In fact the police are legally obliged to investigate every allegation they receive about all alleged crimes. So all the fauxtrage stories like Anne Robinson being investigated for anti Welsh racism etc etc are nearly always nothing more than the police having received a complaint.
Fishing expeditions will often generate fish. It's a very slippery slope imho to say " Well this investigation into X can go nowhere because they are dead but we just might turn up something on Y "
If you break the link between possible prosecution and investigations why not racial profiling for instance ?
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
Kind of like how the EU is only interested in a deal it dictates?
That's fine, I'd still take a deal with the USA. Besides the USA alone is considerably bigger and wealthier than the entire EU27 combined.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
What if they didn't act alone? Surely it's worth investigating for that reason.
Sure. But we could just dip sample the population and investigate constantly on that basis. How much crime would be detected if we just investigated 1% of the population in general every year.
Not the same at all. The police have evidence that a crime occurred. They cannot presume to know all about it and who else might be implicated, so they have no choice to investigate it IMO. Surely we don't believe that criminals should get off, because what they did happened long ago.
I had my car vandalised and was given a crime reference number and told to ask neighbouring businesses if they had any CCTV that covered it because the Police wouldn't investigate without CCTV. The Police wouldn't even look for the CCTV themselves, I had to find out if the CCTV existed and get back in touch if I could find it.
I had my home burgled once and the Police again didn't investigate.
I had my home burgled another time and caught the burglar in the act (I chased him physically out of my house) and got the licence plate of the car he drove off in. The Police only investigated because I had the licence plate.
Unless you're a celebrity or murdered the Police investigation of most crimes is "do you know who did this and can you prove it without us investigating further".
What I don't understand about austerity is how we have to put up with losing services that always used to be done in a balanced budget. Our economy is bigger that ever before, so we should have far more revenue than we did in the 1990s. Why do we have to have less services than we had then? Where is all the extra money going?
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
Jimmy Saville was not tried, but was clearly not innocent and it was not a waste of time investigating what happened.
“Clearly not innocent”? The allegations against him remain - as a matter of law - allegations. An investigation into why someone against whom there were suspicions and rumours was allowed access to hospitals etc was certainly worthwhile but that is a very different sort of investigation to one establishing evidence to be taken to a court of law.
But there's stacks of first hand evidence against him, easily enough that if it were an issue in other litigation it would be admissible and would succeed, certainly on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities). That is why his victims are successfully claiming against his estate; (I don't know whether any facts have been admitted or proved in connection with those claims, but the backdrop for those claims succeeding must be that the lawyers for the estate think the factual allegations could be proved if they needed to be). There is nothing special about the "presumption of innocence", it's just an instance of the general rule that he who alleges must prove.
You are confusing the criminal and civil burdens of proof.
In the latter - a claim for money, say, the test is whether on the balance of probabilities the claim is made out and it is a judge who decides.
In a criminal trial, because we are talking about potentially removing someone’s liberty, we have a much tougher burden of proof and rules about what evidence is admissible. Plus a jury. The presumption of innocence is special for precisely that reason. But of course with a dead person the question of their liberty is not an issue which is why it is so wrong to put them on some sort of pseudo trial.
The risk is that this approach - that an allegation is proof and that complainants must always be believed - seeps into the police’s (and others’) approach to live people, with consequent injustice to them. As we have seen with Lord Bramall, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and others.
Mr. Elliot, welfare. Leaving aside the labyrinthine mess of benefits, people are living longer, which increases both pensions and health costs massively.
Of course, every time the government raises the pensions age, people bleat.
No they don't, or not consistently so - a lot of it is done electronically. But the better option would be to not have one at all. The Republic of Ireland has always had a unique relationship with the UK (the common travel area, for example). Why does Britain need to impose customs checks on the Irish border at all?
'Not constituently' doesn't clear the bar set by May in her Florence speech of no physical infrastructure at all.
As for why it's needed? Apparently some people are very keen on 'our own' trade deals.
You are, I'm sure, deliberately missing the point. If the Norway-Sweden border isn't a consistent physical border (and it's not), then that does imply that those bits which are physical are an optional extra and could be done away with.
Likewise, why should it matter to, say, Australia, what the state of the UK's border is with Eire?
It doesn't, of course, matter to anyone but the EU....
No they don't, or not consistently so - a lot of it is done electronically. But the better option would be to not have one at all. The Republic of Ireland has always had a unique relationship with the UK (the common travel area, for example). Why does Britain need to impose customs checks on the Irish border at all?
'Not constituently' doesn't clear the bar set by May in her Florence speech of no physical infrastructure at all.
As for why it's needed? Apparently some people are very keen on 'our own' trade deals.
You are, I'm sure, deliberately missing the point. If the Norway-Sweden border isn't a consistent physical border (and it's not), then that does imply that those bits which are physical are an optional extra and could be done away with.
Likewise, why should it matter to, say, Australia, what the state of the UK's border is with Eire?
Do away with the ANPR cameras for example? I don't think so.
If you do a trade deal with a particular jurisdiction, it helps to know that they don't have a completely open backdoor. Perhaps more significantly, if we want to diverge from the EU on regulation, then a hard border somewhere becomes inevitable.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
Kind of like how the EU is only interested in a deal it dictates?
That's fine, I'd still take a deal with the USA. Besides the USA alone is considerably bigger and wealthier than the entire EU27 combined.
The EU is an arsehole that thinks it can make itself more popular simply by farting more loudly.
Surely the main points of that WTO/Agriculture story Southampton linked to are #1 That that isn't a discussion of a trade deal. It's a discussion of a WTO Brexit. #2 That we all talk as if a WTO Brexit is an off the shelf product we can default to. When in actual fact it's quite a complex thing in it's self need have preparation.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
Kind of like how the EU is only interested in a deal it dictates?
That's fine, I'd still take a deal with the USA. Besides the USA alone is considerably bigger and wealthier than the entire EU27 combined.
The EU is an arsehole that thinks it can make itself more popular simply by farting more loudly.
You had the fun of your popularity contest last June. Popularity now counts for nothing.
Miss Cyclefree, we've also seen Truss (Justice Secretary) describe those alleging others have committed crimes against them as 'victims'. It's a prejudicial term, we can't just assume accusers are telling the truth, as if justice is a weapon that defendants are hit with. It's got to be objective and neutral.
Mr. Eagles, a fair judgement, as your wardrobe can induce epileptic fits.
My suits are awesome, especially my work suits, they demonstrate sober professionalism.
I found the most eccentrically bizarre and delightfully fun shoe shop in Calgary of all places. Like a sweetshop for shoes. Made LK Bennett look like Start Rite.
If you do a trade deal with a particular jurisdiction, it helps to know that they don't have a completely open backdoor. Perhaps more significantly, if we want to diverge from the EU on regulation, then a hard border somewhere becomes inevitable.
There is a vanishingly small chance that we won't recognise EU regulations on goods. Why should we? We are quite happy that EU-approved goods don't pose any danger to us. Of course the EU might choose to impose a border, if it doesn't want to reciprocate. That's up to them, if they can square the Irish government. We should however be crystal clear where the obstructiveness and call for border checks is coming from, and it certainly isn't the UK.
If you do a trade deal with a particular jurisdiction, it helps to know that they don't have a completely open backdoor. Perhaps more significantly, if we want to diverge from the EU on regulation, then a hard border somewhere becomes inevitable.
There is a vanishingly small chance that we won't recognise EU regulations on goods. Why should we? We are quite happy that EU-approved goods don't pose any danger to us. Of course the EU might choose to impose a border, if it doesn't want to reciprocate. That's up to them, if they can square the Irish government. We should however be crystal clear where the obstructiveness and call for border checks is coming from, and it certainly isn't the UK.
How about agricultural standards? Are we going to ask the EU to accept whatever new system we might come up with in future to deal with foot and mouth disease for example?
If you do a trade deal with a particular jurisdiction, it helps to know that they don't have a completely open backdoor. Perhaps more significantly, if we want to diverge from the EU on regulation, then a hard border somewhere becomes inevitable.
There is a vanishingly small chance that we won't recognise EU regulations on goods. Why should we? We are quite happy that EU-approved goods don't pose any danger to us. Of course the EU might choose to impose a border, if it doesn't want to reciprocate. That's up to them, if they can square the Irish government. We should however be crystal clear where the obstructiveness and call for border checks is coming from, and it certainly isn't the UK.
How about agricultural standards? Are we going to ask the EU to accept whatever new system we might come up with in future to deal with foot and mouth disease for example?
Sure, why not? It's not as if the EU's standards with its horsemeat and salmonella is perfect.
How about agricultural standards? Are we going to ask the EU to accept whatever new system we might come up with in future to deal with foot and mouth disease for example?
It is the case at the moment that EU states can impose controls on movement of animals for the purpose of dealing with diseases or protecting health, and that there are already electronic systems for tracking such movements. It doesn't require a hard border.
No, neither are popular. But I think we're past that now. The Tories best hope is competence.
It that is really what you care about, then you want Ken Clarke.
No way. And you know that won't wash.
So it's not really competence then. Ideological purity comes first.
Ken is 77. He would have been a good choice in 1997 but you can't assume that just because he'd have been competent then, he still would be now.
And as you well know, his position on both the EU in general and on the referendum in particular mean that his ability to deliver the party policy would be highly compromised.
Party policy will have to accommodate itself to the reality that leaving the EU cannot be done without inflicting fatal damage on the UK and the Conservatives. It's time to wake up and smell the tariff-free coffee.
It won't and it can. But even if it would and it couldn't, it's happening anyway.
So we're leaving the customs union. Where will the customs border with Ireland be?
Same place as the one between Sweden and Norway, perhaps?
They have infrastructure on that border to do customs checks. The UK has ruled that out as incompatible with the GFA so you have a choice of:
- The RoI/NI border using magic - Between NI and GB - The UK as a whole stays in the customs union
1 is impossible, 2 means the de facto end of the UK, and 3 means no real Brexit.
No they don't, or not consistently so - a lot of it is done electronically. But the better option would be to not have one at all. The Republic of Ireland has always had a unique relationship with the UK (the common travel area, for example). Why does Britain need to impose customs checks on the Irish border at all?
There would be no need if we simply abolish import duties. Then it's up to the EU side to impose customs checks for their own imports.
Mr. Elliot, welfare. Leaving aside the labyrinthine mess of benefits, people are living longer, which increases both pensions and health costs massively.
Of course, every time the government raises the pensions age, people bleat.
We only spend 5% of GDP on state pensions, though. Almost the lowest for any developed country.
We only spend 8-10% on health, again almost the lowest.
i) The Tories are pensioners - average ages are within 10% of each other across the Parties ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems iii) Labour is a 'London/M25' Party - its the least represented in London/South East of the national parties. iv) The Tories are the London/South East Party - not when the Lib Dems have 60% of their members there. v) Labour is the Party of the young - really, with 16% of their members under 34 while the Tories have 14% and the LD's 20%?
Most interesting was the 27% of Labour who were 55-64. This is the group who were 30-40 in the Major years.
Presumably they were personally hit by negative equity / knew people who were plus had an imprint of Tory chaos in their formative years.
It's one of the most interesting features - once a cohorts mind is fixed it doesn't seem to shift much but moves like a bolus through the rumen
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
What if they didn't act alone? Surely it's worth investigating for that reason.
Sure. But we could just dip sample the population and investigate constantly on that basis. How much crime would be detected if we just investigated 1% of the population in general every year.
Not the same at all. The police have evidence that a crime occurred. They cannot presume to know all about it and who else might be implicated, so they have no choice to investigate it IMO. Surely we don't believe that criminals should get off, because what they did happened long ago.
I had my car vandalised and was given a crime reference number and told to ask neighbouring businesses if they had any CCTV that covered it because the Police wouldn't investigate without CCTV. The Police wouldn't even look for the CCTV themselves, I had to find out if the CCTV existed and get back in touch if I could find it.
I had my home burgled once and the Police again didn't investigate.
I had my home burgled another time and caught the burglar in the act (I chased him physically out of my house) and got the licence plate of the car he drove off in. The Police only investigated because I had the licence plate.
Unless you're a celebrity or murdered the Police investigation of most crimes is "do you know who did this and can you prove it without us investigating further".
What I don't understand about austerity is how we have to put up with losing services that always used to be done in a balanced budget. Our economy is bigger that ever before, so we should have far more revenue than we did in the 1990s. Why do we have to have less services than we had then? Where is all the extra money going?
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
Is he making a legal claim that they shouldn't have used the song, or just saying that he didn't approve them using it and doesn't want people to think he would?
i) The Tories are pensioners - average ages are within 10% of each other across the Parties ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems iii) Labour is a 'London/M25' Party - its the least represented in London/South East of the national parties. iv) The Tories are the London/South East Party - not when the Lib Dems have 60% of their members there. v) Labour is the Party of the young - really, with 16% of their members under 34 while the Tories have 14% and the LD's 20%?
Most interesting was the 27% of Labour who were 55-64. This is the group who were 30-40 in the Major years.
Presumably they were personally hit by negative equity / knew people who were plus had an imprint of Tory chaos in their formative years.
It's one of the most interesting features - once a cohorts mind is fixed it doesn't seem to shift much but moves like a bolus through the rumen
I think it's more likely to be because they were 18-24 in the early Thatcher years.
There are too many "has to happen but is impossibles" at the moment. May sacking Boris. Britain getting a bespoke EU deal. The CTA surviving intact. Churchill managed WWII with "Keep Buggering On" - but we can't do that now as we can't agree where we are supposed to be heading.
When you strip the party politics and petty rivalry away the objective is quite simple: 1. Leave the EU without collapsing trade and crashing the economy 2. Maintain peace in NI - respect the rules and borders of the UK/ROI and EU/UK 3. Maintain our physical ability to trade on day 1 after we leave
There is a simple solution to all 3 - join EFTA and stay in the EEA. All we need is to remove the squabbling petty moron "our way or you're a traitor" bullshit and get on with the job.
May can't keep letters on a conference set, never mind retain even the pretence of cabinet collective responsibility. When the leader can't lead their own team they have ceased to be a leader - she has to go.
It is then who replaces her that is the problem. If the Conservatives were thinking as conservatives they would get that the objective for March 2019 trumps all other considerations and that means stopping the civil war and parking personal ambitions and thinking about the country.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
They're not in the public domain, but they are freely licensable. You pays your dues, you play the record.
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
This is not true. The copyright holder can withhold permission for playing a song in public. What may well be the case though is that Mr Harris is not the copy right holder but rather the "record label" or what ever these companies are called theses days.
You are confusing the criminal and civil burdens of proof.
In the latter - a claim for money, say, the test is whether on the balance of probabilities the claim is made out and it is a judge who decides.
In a criminal trial, because we are talking about potentially removing someone’s liberty, we have a much tougher burden of proof and rules about what evidence is admissible. Plus a jury. The presumption of innocence is special for precisely that reason. But of course with a dead person the question of their liberty is not an issue which is why it is so wrong to put them on some sort of pseudo trial.
The risk is that this approach - that an allegation is proof and that complainants must always be believed - seeps into the police’s (and others’) approach to live people, with consequent injustice to them. As we have seen with Lord Bramall, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and others.
If I ever had a tendency to confuse the two, two years of law school and fifteen as a litigation specialist would probably have cured it by now. What you are doing, is generalising a specific rule where the generalisation is absurd. Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? On what evidence?
i) The Tories are pensioners - average ages are within 10% of each other across the Parties ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems iii) Labour is a 'London/M25' Party - its the least represented in London/South East of the national parties. iv) The Tories are the London/South East Party - not when the Lib Dems have 60% of their members there. v) Labour is the Party of the young - really, with 16% of their members under 34 while the Tories have 14% and the LD's 20%?
Most interesting was the 27% of Labour who were 55-64. This is the group who were 30-40 in the Major years.
Presumably they were personally hit by negative equity / knew people who were plus had an imprint of Tory chaos in their formative years.
It's one of the most interesting features - once a cohorts mind is fixed it doesn't seem to shift much but moves like a bolus through the rumen
Until changed by experience. Those who were 18-24 in 1997 (huge for Blair) are now in their early 40s, and their split for Remain/Leave wasn't far off 50/50.
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
They're not in the public domain, but they are freely licensable. You pays your dues, you play the record.
Which is why I referenced paying PPL etc who collect the dues to the record labels.
There is a simple solution to all 3 - join EFTA and stay in the EEA.
It's not simple and doesn't resolve all three.
1. We would lose EU third party trade deals and wouldn't automatically gain access to EFTA's - they have renegotiation clauses and a large economy like the UK would naturally change the balance. 2. This would still require border infrastructure and wouldn't adequately uphold all parts of the GFA. 3. See 1.
I'm afraid there are no easy answers. The only inevitability is humiliation for the UK and all who supported Brexit.
The last 10 days have shown definitively that the only trade deal we will get with the US is one that it dictates. And one that it dictates will be solely concerned with what is best for the US. It may only be Liam Fox and Dan Hannan that do not quite get this yet.
Kind of like how the EU is only interested in a deal it dictates?
That's fine, I'd still take a deal with the USA. Besides the USA alone is considerably bigger and wealthier than the entire EU27 combined.
The EU is an arsehole that thinks it can make itself more popular simply by farting more loudly.
You had the fun of your popularity contest last June. Popularity now counts for nothing.
If you think cold-minded retribution from the EU will bring the UK into line, then you are sorely mistaken.
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
They're not in the public domain, but they are freely licensable. You pays your dues, you play the record.
Which is why I referenced paying PPL etc who collect the dues to the record labels.
Sorry, I meant your point was valid, it's just the phrase "public domain" that's problematic.
This gets said by someone every year. The songs are in the public domain, so long as you pay the appropriate fees to PPL etc there is no need to get approval to play them *rolleyes*
They're not in the public domain, but they are freely licensable. You pays your dues, you play the record.
Which is why I referenced paying PPL etc who collect the dues to the record labels.
Sorry, I meant your point was valid, it's just the phrase "public domain" that's problematic.
Yes it's perhaps not the right technical phrase to use.
I see the bbc have finally caught up with the guardians report of several days ago on the ted heath investigation. The Guardian one actually mentioned the low threshold that is 'grounds to suspect' (a rather weak outcome after millions and years ) and it also explained how
.
I have no issue with a claim being investigated, and thoroughly too given the implications. Even in the case of being so historic and thus hard to prove , and even if the subject is dead, if an allegation is serious enough some level of investigation may be warranted. Of course, one must question how much time and money can be afforded to not given other priorities.
But the claims need to be substantive, there needs to be corroboration, and most vitally the investigation needs to be properly conducted. The unacceptability of an approach which presumes guilt and biases investigators as detailed by the Henriques report really stuck with me. The automatically believing alleged victims and making people, who are in this case dead, needing to prove innocence, is abhorrent to the very idea of proper procedure, and the Guardian report, though not negative, indicated by detail they used that approach.
That 'grounds to suspect' is such a low barrier but will be taken as proof of guilt is very sad.
4 points:-
1. The police should remember that everyone - everyone - no matter how vile the allegation - is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Their job is to investigate not declare guilt.
2. Taking a complainant seriously means investigating their allegations thoroughly not assuming, without more, that what they say is true. Therapy for victims should be provided by other services. Investigations need to be rigorous and they can’t be if the police are worried that testing the allegations will upset the complainant.
3. There is little point the police investigating allegations against a dead person. They cannot be tried. They cannot defend themselves. It is a waste of scarce resources when there are current crimes which need investigation.
4. The relationship between the police and the press needs tightening up. While press publicity may be helpful, releasing details of police raids a la Cliff Richard is a disgrace. The police’s role in the press hounding of that poor man in Bristol does not bear close examination either.
Why then are the likes of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith presumed to be guilty of the allegations made against them?. Neither were tried.
There are too many "has to happen but is impossibles" at the moment. May sacking Boris. Britain getting a bespoke EU deal. The CTA surviving intact. Churchill managed WWII with "Keep Buggering On" - but we can't do that now as we can't agree where we are supposed to be heading.
When you strip the party politics and petty rivalry away the objective is quite simple: 1. Leave the EU without collapsing trade and crashing the economy 2. Maintain peace in NI - respect the rules and borders of the UK/ROI and EU/UK 3. Maintain our physical ability to trade on day 1 after we leave
There is a simple solution to all 3 - join EFTA and stay in the EEA. All we need is to remove the squabbling petty moron "our way or you're a traitor" bullshit and get on with the job.
May can't keep letters on a conference set, never mind retain even the pretence of cabinet collective responsibility. When the leader can't lead their own team they have ceased to be a leader - she has to go.
It is then who replaces her that is the problem. If the Conservatives were thinking as conservatives they would get that the objective for March 2019 trumps all other considerations and that means stopping the civil war and parking personal ambitions and thinking about the country.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond ed a model of how an ex-PM should behavefor a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
It’s a measure of how rubbish today’s Tories are that we’ll soon be looking back at his government as a model of coherence and stability.
I always rather liked Major and he has provided an exemplary model for how ex-PMs should behave.
i) The Tories are pensioners - average ages are within 10% of each other across the Parties ii) No Tories in Scotland - proportionately more than Labour or the Lib Dems iii) Labour is a 'London/M25' Party - its the least represented in London/South East of the national parties. iv) The Tories are the London/South East Party - not when the Lib Dems have 60% of their members there. v) Labour is the Party of the young - really, with 16% of their members under 34 while the Tories have 14% and the LD's 20%?
Most interesting was the 27% of Labour who were 55-64. This is the group who were 30-40 in the Major years.
Presumably they were personally hit by negative equity / knew people who were plus had an imprint of Tory chaos in their formative years.
It's one of the most interesting features - once a cohorts mind is fixed it doesn't seem to shift much but moves like a bolus through the rumen
Then there's the group 45-55 who were in their 20's during the Major years and had friends and relatives who got hit by the negative equity, and thought "thank god I was too young to buy in 1988"
There are too many "has to happen but is impossibles" at the moment. May sacking Boris. Britain getting a bespoke EU deal. The CTA surviving intact. Churchill managed WWII with "Keep Buggering On" - but we can't do that now as we can't agree where we are supposed to be heading.
When you strip the party politics and petty rivalry away the objective is quite simple: 1. Leave the EU without collapsing trade and crashing the economy 2. Maintain peace in NI - respect the rules and borders of the UK/ROI and EU/UK 3. Maintain our physical ability to trade on day 1 after we leave
There is a simple solution to all 3 - join EFTA and stay in the EEA. All we need is to remove the squabbling petty moron "our way or you're a traitor" bullshit and get on with the job.
May can't keep letters on a conference set, never mind retain even the pretence of cabinet collective responsibility. When the leader can't lead their own team they have ceased to be a leader - she has to go.
It is then who replaces her that is the problem. If the Conservatives were thinking as conservatives they would get that the objective for March 2019 trumps all other considerations and that means stopping the civil war and parking personal ambitions and thinking about the country.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
Great idea! Would teach that Lazarrus a thing or two. Wouldn't he need to be an MP though?
I always rather liked Major and he has provided an exemplary model for how ex-PMs should behave.
If only Thatcher had behaved like him we probably wouldn't be in this mess now. (Although to be fair the circumstances of their downfalls were somewhat different.)
@matt_dathan: Tory MP & 1 of PM's trade envoys @edvaizey says it's "increasingly difficult to see a way forward" for @theresa_may, adding: "It worries me"
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
I don't care whether there is suspicion about Ted Heath or not - the man is dead. Plenty of injustices involving people who are still alive to concentrate time/money/people on.
I don't care whether there is suspicion about Ted Heath or not - the man is dead. Plenty of injustices involving people who are still alive to concentrate time/money/people on.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
He's not a Lord.
Chris Patten, then. Not that old, although he may be weary and not want the job. Certainly a statesman.
If you think that then you are never getting a deal on trade with the EU. WTO now or ever won't get through the Commons, so what now.
I think we're going to leave with no deal.
If we are we must not pay them a single cent after we've left.
Two things will happen:
(1) The EU will make sure an example is made of the UK to show other member states that deserters face consequences (2) The UK-EU will eventually do a comprehensive treaty on goods, services and security/defence cooperation, as its a geopolitical inevitability
The EU probably recognise (2) is where the UK-EU need to get to, but can't make it look easy. The question is how much pain both sides want to go through to get there.
This is high-stakes poker. Both will call.
My guess is no deal, because May won't get it through Parliament, the Government falls, Corbyn wins, he f*cks it up royally, the Tories back in within 10 years, and a proper deal by about 2030.
Invent a separate process for historic allegations if need be but don't waste Police resources on these nonsense pseudo investigations.
What if they didn't act alone? Surely it's worth investigating for that reason.
Sure. But we could just dip sample the population and investigate constantly on that basis. How much crime would be detected if we just investigated 1% of the population in general every year.
Not the same at all. The police have evidence that a crime occurred. They cannot presume to know all about it and who else might be implicated, so they have no choice to investigate it IMO. Surely we don't believe that criminals should get off, because what they did happened long ago.
I had my car vandalised and was given a crime reference number and told to ask neighbouring businesses if they had any CCTV that covered it because the Police wouldn't investigate without CCTV. The Police wouldn't even look for the CCTV themselves, I had to find out if the CCTV existed and get back in touch if I could find it.
I had my home burgled once and the Police again didn't investigate.
I had my home burgled another time and caught the burglar in the act (I chased him physically out of my house) and got the licence plate of the car he drove off in. The Police only investigated because I had the licence plate.
Unless you're a celebrity or murdered the Police investigation of most crimes is "do you know who did this and can you prove it without us investigating further".
What I don't understand about austerity is how we have to put up with losing services that always used to be done in a balanced budget. Our economy is bigger that ever before, so we should have far more revenue than we did in the 1990s. Why do we have to have less services than we had then? Where is all the extra money going?
If you think that then you are never getting a deal on trade with the EU. WTO now or ever won't get through the Commons, so what now.
I think we're going to leave with no deal.
If we are we must not pay them a single cent after we've left.
If we are at 'no deal' in March 2019 then would there not be huge political pressure either to extend or revoke A50? Personally I think that this may be the crisis point towards which the EU is aiming.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
He's not a Lord.
Chris Patten, then. Not that old, although he may be weary and not want the job. Certainly a statesman.
@matt_dathan: Tory MP & 1 of PM's trade envoys @edvaizey says it's "increasingly difficult to see a way forward" for @theresa_may, adding: "It worries me"
He's correct though - lance the boil now. Get fresh impetus. Govern until a 2022 GE.
@matt_dathan: Tory MP & 1 of PM's trade envoys @edvaizey says it's "increasingly difficult to see a way forward" for @theresa_may, adding: "It worries me"
You are confusing the criminal and civil burdens of proof.
In the latter - a claim for money, say, the test is whether on the balance of probabilities the claim is made out and it is a judge who decides.
In a criminal trial, because we are talking about potentially removing someone’s liberty, we have a much tougher burden of proof and rules about what evidence is admissible. Plus a jury. The presumption of innocence is special for precisely that reason. But of course with a dead person the question of their liberty is not an issue which is why it is so wrong to put them on some sort of pseudo trial.
The risk is that this approach - that an allegation is proof and that complainants must always be believed - seeps into the police’s (and others’) approach to live people, with consequent injustice to them. As we have seen with Lord Bramall, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and others.
If I ever had a tendency to confuse the two, two years of law school and fifteen as a litigation specialist would probably have cured it by now. What you are doing, is generalising a specific rule where the generalisation is absurd. Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? On what evidence?
Apologies: I thought I was replying to one of the Jonathans.
Historical facts are one thing. Historians and journalist are not the same as investigators.
Professional investigators - such as the police - need to do their job properly according to the law and not stray into other areas, such as alleviating the victims’ pain. My other point is that once someone is dead guilt or innocence in a court of law is irrelevant. Putting a dead person on trial may be an entertaining way of passing a few days but it is not a sensible use of limited police/legal resources.
Anyway am repeating myself now. One doesn’t want to be a bore. I hope I’ve made my point.
And the hound is looking at me pleadingly..........
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
He's not a Lord.
I know that. How quickly would it take to get him into the Lords? And yes, the party rules almost certainly don't allow for a leader in the Lords. But if the MPs can't remove the dead woman's hands from the tiller and can't decide on who should replace her then they need to have the grandees sort them out.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
He's not a Lord.
Chris Patten, then. Not that old, although he may be weary and not want the job. Certainly a statesman.
Hague?
Would need to upgrade to hereditary peerage so that he could stand for the Commons.
If you do a trade deal with a particular jurisdiction, it helps to know that they don't have a completely open backdoor. Perhaps more significantly, if we want to diverge from the EU on regulation, then a hard border somewhere becomes inevitable.
There is a vanishingly small chance that we won't recognise EU regulations on goods. Why should we? We are quite happy that EU-approved goods don't pose any danger to us. Of course the EU might choose to impose a border, if it doesn't want to reciprocate. That's up to them, if they can square the Irish government. We should however be crystal clear where the obstructiveness and call for border checks is coming from, and it certainly isn't the UK.
Your logic is flawed. There are EU regulations are for goods produced in the EU and other regulations for goods sold in the EU. The second set of regulations would not apply to goods produced in Ireland to be sold in the UK.
Miss Cyclefree, a dead Pope was put on trial once by his successor (I think the chap on trial [he was found guilty, incidentally] might have been the one who colluded with the French king to bring down the Knights Templar).
Mind you, Xerxes once had the sea lashed as punishment for his bridge of ships being damaged.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
He's not a Lord.
Chris Patten, then. Not that old, although he may be weary and not want the job. Certainly a statesman.
Hague?
Equally wouldn't want the job.... And that's the problem who in their right mind would want to deal with the current mess..
My guess is no deal, because May won't get it through Parliament, the Government falls, Corbyn wins, he f*cks it up royally, the Tories back in within 10 years, and a proper deal by about 2030.
Mais où sont les brexiteers d'antan?
I remember when it was all "Singapore of the North Atlantic", Global Britain and with one bound we're free.
The Evening Standard cartoons really aren't very funny.
They aren't as bad as Steve Bell, but no that's not amusing. The only cartoonist who regularly makes me laugh is Matt, the rest of them might as well chuck it in.
There are too many "has to happen but is impossibles" at the moment. May sacking Boris. Britain getting a bespoke EU deal. The CTA surviving intact. Churchill managed WWII with "Keep Buggering On" - but we can't do that now as we can't agree where we are supposed to be heading.
KBO was from the wilderness years. Our next Prime Minister has written a biography of Churchill.
My guess is no deal, because May won't get it through Parliament, the Government falls, Corbyn wins, he f*cks it up royally, the Tories back in within 10 years, and a proper deal by about 2030.
Mais où sont les brexiteers d'antan?
I remember when it was all "Singapore of the North Atlantic", Global Britain and with one bound we're free.
That was before we went for the miserably dour May rather than the globally optimistic Boris.
We need some positivity and optimism, we need Boris.
My guess is no deal, because May won't get it through Parliament, the Government falls, Corbyn wins, he f*cks it up royally, the Tories back in within 10 years, and a proper deal by about 2030.
Mais où sont les brexiteers d'antan?
I remember when it was all "Singapore of the North Atlantic", Global Britain and with one bound we're free.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
He's not a Lord.
Chris Patten, then. Not that old, although he may be weary and not want the job. Certainly a statesman.
The headbangers would prefer Comrade Corbyn to Eurocrat Patten to deliver Brexit!
Comments
I had my home burgled once and the Police again didn't investigate.
I had my home burgled another time and caught the burglar in the act (I chased him physically out of my house) and got the licence plate of the car he drove off in. The Police only investigated because I had the licence plate.
Unless you're a celebrity or murdered the Police investigation of most crimes is "do you know who did this and can you prove it without us investigating further".
Are you capable of thinking through and articulating your own view, rather than just parroting that of your masters?
Fishing expeditions will often generate fish. It's a very slippery slope imho to say " Well this investigation into X can go nowhere because they are dead but we just might turn up something on Y "
If you break the link between possible prosecution and investigations why not racial profiling for instance ?
That's fine, I'd still take a deal with the USA. Besides the USA alone is considerably bigger and wealthier than the entire EU27 combined.
In the latter - a claim for money, say, the test is whether on the balance of probabilities the claim is made out and it is a judge who decides.
In a criminal trial, because we are talking about potentially removing someone’s liberty, we have a much tougher burden of proof and rules about what evidence is admissible. Plus a jury. The presumption of innocence is special for precisely that reason. But of course with a dead person the question of their liberty is not an issue which is why it is so wrong to put them on some sort of pseudo trial.
The risk is that this approach - that an allegation is proof and that complainants must always be believed - seeps into the police’s (and others’) approach to live people, with consequent injustice to them. As we have seen with Lord Bramall, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and others.
Of course, every time the government raises the pensions age, people bleat.
If you do a trade deal with a particular jurisdiction, it helps to know that they don't have a completely open backdoor. Perhaps more significantly, if we want to diverge from the EU on regulation, then a hard border somewhere becomes inevitable.
Is a suicide bomber, who by definition can never be convicted of their crime, innocent?
I did not leave empty-handed either......
Which should do wonders for Europhillia in the ROI - not.
Almost the lowest for any developed country.
We only spend 8-10% on health, again almost the lowest.
If you think that then you are never getting a deal on trade with the EU. WTO now or ever won't get through the Commons, so what now.
Presumably they were personally hit by negative equity / knew people who were plus had an imprint of Tory chaos in their formative years.
It's one of the most interesting features - once a cohorts mind is fixed it doesn't seem to shift much but moves like a bolus through the rumen
When you strip the party politics and petty rivalry away the objective is quite simple:
1. Leave the EU without collapsing trade and crashing the economy
2. Maintain peace in NI - respect the rules and borders of the UK/ROI and EU/UK
3. Maintain our physical ability to trade on day 1 after we leave
There is a simple solution to all 3 - join EFTA and stay in the EEA. All we need is to remove the squabbling petty moron "our way or you're a traitor" bullshit and get on with the job.
May can't keep letters on a conference set, never mind retain even the pretence of cabinet collective responsibility. When the leader can't lead their own team they have ceased to be a leader - she has to go.
It is then who replaces her that is the problem. If the Conservatives were thinking as conservatives they would get that the objective for March 2019 trumps all other considerations and that means stopping the civil war and parking personal ambitions and thinking about the country.
If Tory MPs are incapable of behaving then they need to be bypassed. Look to the Lords and beyond for a figure who can lead both the party and the country for 18 months to get us through Brexit. I have a name to float to you who could do that job, is a well-respected statesman and isn't too enmeshed in the current bickering.
Sir John Major.
1. We would lose EU third party trade deals and wouldn't automatically gain access to EFTA's - they have renegotiation clauses and a large economy like the UK would naturally change the balance.
2. This would still require border infrastructure and wouldn't adequately uphold all parts of the GFA.
3. See 1.
I'm afraid there are no easy answers. The only inevitability is humiliation for the UK and all who supported Brexit.
I always rather liked Major and he has provided an exemplary model for how ex-PMs should behave.
But, as friends. Everything I heard about him was that he was as asexual as it's possible to get.
Just wasn't interested. Some people aren't.
But we have been over the same ground too many times.
(1) The EU will make sure an example is made of the UK to show other member states that deserters face consequences
(2) The UK-EU will eventually do a comprehensive treaty on goods, services and security/defence cooperation, as its a geopolitical inevitability
The EU probably recognise (2) is where the UK-EU need to get to, but can't make it look easy. The question is how much pain both sides want to go through to get there.
This is high-stakes poker. Both will call.
My guess is no deal, because May won't get it through Parliament, the Government falls, Corbyn wins, he f*cks it up royally, the Tories back in within 10 years, and a proper deal by about 2030.
Historical facts are one thing. Historians and journalist are not the same as investigators.
Professional investigators - such as the police - need to do their job properly according to the law and not stray into other areas, such as alleviating the victims’ pain. My other point is that once someone is dead guilt or innocence in a court of law is irrelevant. Putting a dead person on trial may be an entertaining way of passing a few days but it is not a sensible use of limited police/legal resources.
Anyway am repeating myself now. One doesn’t want to be a bore. I hope I’ve made my point.
And the hound is looking at me pleadingly..........
The perils of internet debate.
Mr. B, a fair point.
Mind you, Xerxes once had the sea lashed as punishment for his bridge of ships being damaged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41509050
I remember when it was all "Singapore of the North Atlantic", Global Britain and with one bound we're free.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/poll/30-08-2016/do-you-support-renationalisation-of-rail-energy-water-and-more
We need some positivity and optimism, we need Boris.