For the record my betting position is that Trump will serve a full term, I cannot see the Dems getting anywhere near 67 Senators this year.
I agree. That is my betting position too. The only downsides are if he dies in office (2-5% chance) and if he resigns in a fit of pique because he is fed up with the whole show (10-20% chance I reckon). So I think he has a 75% chance of lasting his term (compared to the 50% implied by Betfair). I'm backing him staying the course.
I think the chance of him standing again in 2020 is around 50% (no chance if he doesn't last the course), the chance of him winning the nomination if he does stand again is about 50% (novelty value gone), and the chance of him winning the election if he wins the nomination is about 30%. So a 7.5% chance i.e. about 15s on Betfair (compared with about 3.5 shown there now). I'm heavily laying him being the next President.
I agree with your strategy of betting Trump will be president until 2020 and will not be re-elected then. However his chances of falling at each stage of the re-election process are not independent of each other, so cumulatively he has a higher than 7.5% chance of making it through to the presidency. Primary voters will choose another candidate if they reckon Trump's chances are slight at the GE. Trump won't stand for re-election if he thinks he won't be nominated. The 30% chance of winning the GE assumes a much higher probability of him getting through the preliminary stages IMO. I would guess Trump has a 20% - 25% chance of being the next president, which is still a bit better than the odds offered.
If, during the nomination process, he is seen to have only a 30% chance of winning the GE, surely that would reduce the probability of him being nominated? I take your general point that they are not independent probabilities but I have framed them as conditional on the previous stage. P(A|B)*P(B|C)*P(C).
Has Michelle Obama given any indication either way on whether she might run?
Although, on balance, she might see the Clinton route as not being a great precedent for President.....
AIUI she’s said precisely nothing on the subject, as one would expect. There’s lots of people who would like to see her run though, hopefully they’ll keep putting money on her.
She has spoken on the subject, with a pretty strong denial:
Ah, that hard-hitting political interviewer Oprah! Thanks for pointing out, definitely still a lay. I’ll stick by my opinion that others are projecting on to her, she’s not going to be a runner in 2020.
Personally, I think it needs to be someone who has governing experience in Congress or Senate.
There will be such a god awful mess to clear up after Trump it is going to need a LBJ-type figure who can bang heads together, broker cross-party deals etc. In other words... govern.
Indeed, and the Dems have a great opportunity to win in 2020 if they have the right candidate.
They need to assume that their opponent will be Trump and go hard with someone who can appeal to his base though. If they pick someone who’ll go on about bathrooms while their opponent is going on about jobs they’ll lose again though.
There’s definitely some similarities with the British markets for next party leaders, with inexplicably short prices for the likes of David Miliband or Ruth Davidson. I’m staying out of the US markets for a few months yet, maybe we’ll have a sense of the runners and riders after the mid-terms in November.
In short the Democrats need a candidate who can appeal more to the rustbelt than San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York city. At the moment Sanders and Biden do best on that score
I have only just been reading about it, but like much else Give has been proposing since he took over at DEFRA, I think it looks very good. Concentrating on quality, standards and the environment and tying subsidies to those areas seems far better than the very poor system we currently have.
The one additional point I would like him to have made is that we should ensure we do not see the rules changing every few years as they have under the CAP.
Gove is the most effective minister in the government - by some distance. He was also excellent at DoE and was making radical steps at DoJ before whatsherface canned it all when she took over.
For the record my betting position is that Trump will serve a full term, I cannot see the Dems getting anywhere near 67 Senators this year.
I agree. That is my betting position too. The only downsides are if he dies in office (2-5% chance) and if he resigns in a fit of pique because he is fed up with the whole show (10-20% chance I reckon). So I think he has a 75% chance of lasting his term (compared to the 50% implied by Betfair). I'm backing him staying the course.
I think the chance of him standing again in 2020 is around 50% (no chance if he doesn't last the course), the chance of him winning the nomination if he does stand again is about 50% (novelty value gone), and the chance of him winning the election if he wins the nomination is about 30%. So a 7.5% chance i.e. about 15s on Betfair (compared with about 3.5 shown there now). I'm heavily laying him being the next President.
I agree with your strategy of betting Trump will be president until 2020 and will not be re-elected then. However his chances of falling at each stage of the re-election process are not independent of each other, so cumulatively he has a higher than 7.5% chance of making it through to the presidency. Primary voters will choose another candidate if they reckon Trump's chances are slight at the GE. Trump won't stand for re-election if he thinks he won't be nominated. The 30% chance of winning the GE assumes a much higher probability of him getting through the preliminary stages IMO. I would guess Trump has a 20% - 25% chance of being the next president, which is still a bit better than the odds offered.
If, during the nomination process, he is seen to have only a 30% chance of winning the GE, surely that would reduce the probability of him being nominated? I take your general point that they are not independent probabilities but I have framed them as conditional on the previous stage. P(A|B)*P(B|C)*P(C).
Has Michelle Obama given any indication either way on whether she might run?
Although, on balance, she might see the Clinton route as not being a great precedent for President.....
AIUI she’s said precisely nothing on the subject, as one would expect. There’s lots of people who would like to see her run though, hopefully they’ll keep putting money on her.
She has spoken on the subject, with a pretty strong denial:
Ah, that hard-hitting political interviewer Oprah! Thanks for pointing out, definitely still a lay. I’ll stick by my opinion that others are projecting on to her, she’s not going to be a runner in 2020.
Personally, I think it needs to be someone who has governing experience in Congress or Senate.
There will be such a god awful mess to clear up after Trump it is going to need a LBJ-type figure who can bang heads together, broker cross-party deals etc. In other words... govern.
Indeed, and the Dems have a great opportunity to win in 2020 if they have the right candidate.
They need to assume that their opponent will be Trump and go hard with someone who can appeal to his base though. If they pick someone who’ll go on about bathrooms while their opponent is going on about jobs they’ll lose again though.
There’s definitely some similarities with the British markets for next party leaders, with inexplicably short prices for the likes of David Miliband or Ruth Davidson. I’m staying out of the US markets for a few months yet, maybe we’ll have a sense of the runners and riders after the mid-terms in November.
In short the Democrats need a candidate who can appeal more to the rustbelt than San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York city. At the moment Sanders and Biden do best on that score
I’ve a lot of time for Joe Biden, and can understand why he didn’t run last time out, but I think he’s missed his chance now. Bernie is even older, he’ll be 79 in 2020.
I think the Dems need to look down a generation, to those in their 50s, if they’re going to succeed.
Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.
Can't do both.
The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.
It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!
It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
@Casino_Royale Saw this is the previous thread and wanted to reply. Many of those who are in their 30s are millennials. Millennials are those born after 1981, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be an agreement among demographers on the specific cut off date.
I have only just been reading about it, but like much else Give has been proposing since he took over at DEFRA, I think it looks very good. Concentrating on quality, standards and the environment and tying subsidies to those areas seems far better than the very poor system we currently have.
The one additional point I would like him to have made is that we should ensure we do not see the rules changing every few years as they have under the CAP.
According to the Times it has been kicked into the long grass. Too many powerful Tories amongst the wealthy landowners coining it from the larger subsidies.
Has Michelle Obama given any indication either way on whether she might run?
Although, on balance, she might see the Clinton route as not being a great precedent for President.....
AIUI she’s said precisely nothing on the subject, as one would expect. There’s lots of people who would like to see her run though, hopefully they’ll keep putting money on her.
She has spoken on the subject, with a pretty strong denial:
Ah, that hard-hitting political interviewer Oprah! Thanks for pointing out, definitely still a lay. I’ll stick by my opinion that others are projecting on to her, she’s not going to be a runner in 2020.
Personally, I think it needs to be someone who has governing experience in Congress or Senate.
There will be such a god awful mess to clear up after Trump it is going to need a LBJ-type figure who can bang heads together, broker cross-party deals etc. In other words... govern.
Indeed, and the Dems have a great opportunity to win in 2020 if they have the right candidate.
They need to assume that their opponent will be Trump and go hard with someone who e’ll have a sense of the runners and riders after the mid-terms in November.
In short the Democrats need a candidate who can appeal more to the rustbelt than San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York city. At the moment Sanders and Biden do best on that score
I’ve a lot of time for Joe Biden, and can understand why he didn’t run last time out, but I think he’s missed his chance now. Bernie is even older, he’ll be 79 in 2020.
I think the Dems need to look down a generation, to those in their 50s, if they’re going to succeed.
All the younger generation for 2020 seem to be liberals from the Coasts or part of the gender bathroom crowd and with Trump someone who is able to appeal to the rustbelt swing states in a way McCain and Romney did not and an incumbent President the Democrats need to find a younger candidate with bluecollar appeal fast if they are going to produce a better candidate than Sanders or Biden and have a chance of beating Trump in 2020 and winning the Electoral College.
Otherwise it may be that they do indeed have to wait for Joseph Kennedy III in 2024 to get a Democrat back in the White House.
According to the Times it has been kicked into the long grass. Too many powerful Tories amongst the wealthy landowners coining it from the larger subsidies.
Really? Who might they be? And how come, in that case, that Gove has said that even in the transitional period there will be a cap on the amounts claimable:
We'll 'leave' with a transition deal where nothing much changes for about the next 4 or 5 years. But we'll be out.
Is the devil in the detail on this one?
The market settles at 2359: 59 on 29th March 2019, but the exact details on the BF market are slightly more convoluted, and only give room for an hour extension.
It was the judge that gave the sentence, it wasn’t appealed at the time for being unduly lenient was it?
Plus Sir Keir wasn’t on the parole board.
He declined to prosecute further cases that came to light. Maybe SOP but it doesn't look good. He's in an invidious position over this as he can't really comment but there were always likely to be one or two cases from his previous career that had the potential to cause political trouble.
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.
Can't do both.
The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.
It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!
It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
@Casino_Royale Saw this is the previous thread and wanted to reply. Many of those who are in their 30s are millennials. Millennials are those born after 1981, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be an agreement among demographers on the specific cut off date.
I should probably say those born after 1992 then. 25 or under.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
It was the judge that gave the sentence, it wasn’t appealed at the time for being unduly lenient was it?
Plus Sir Keir wasn’t on the parole board.
He declined to prosecute further cases that came to light. Maybe SOP but it doesn't look good. He's in an invidious position over this as he can't really comment but there were always likely to be one or two cases from his previous career that had the potential to cause political trouble.
"Writing in the Guardian on Monday, Keir Starmer QC calls for a "radical review" because most victims of sexual violence or assaults do not have sufficient confidence in the police and courts to report what happened. From a victim's point of view the system "is hardly fit for purpose", he writes."
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
Guido says this decision was made because he was given a life sentence, and they didn't think it was necessary. So much for justice for those 75 victims.
It was the judge that gave the sentence, it wasn’t appealed at the time for being unduly lenient was it?
Plus Sir Keir wasn’t on the parole board.
He declined to prosecute further cases that came to light. Maybe SOP but it doesn't look good. He's in an invidious position over this as he can't really comment but there were always likely to be one or two cases from his previous career that had the potential to cause political trouble.
Ah, TSE. The master of the infantile and fatuous comment.
Hell hath no fury like a drama queen scorned..
I see the Leave snowflakes are out in force tonight.
You need to sack up.
You are the one playing the man not the ball. Try giving a proper response to the question and we might start to take you seriously. But these days you really are becoming more and more a figure of ridicule with nothing of any real value to say here.
I have only just been reading about it, but like much else Give has been proposing since he took over at DEFRA, I think it looks very good. Concentrating on quality, standards and the environment and tying subsidies to those areas seems far better than the very poor system we currently have.
The one additional point I would like him to have made is that we should ensure we do not see the rules changing every few years as they have under the CAP.
According to the Times it has been kicked into the long grass. Too many powerful Tories amongst the wealthy landowners coining it from the larger subsidies.
So far into the grass that Gove was actually talking about it today in Oxford. I suspect the Times are out of the loop here.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Why did they change the wording of the question? They are totally different, as one asks if membership is a good thing, while the other asks if the EU is good in general.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Why did they change the wording of the question? They are totally different, as one asks if membership is a good thing, while the other asks if the EU is good in general.
Don't know, but at the moment I'm focussing on why the UK figure dropped around the time Blair came to power.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
Gove's policy sounds very pleasantly bucolic to me.
I've been reading up on it today and he's pledged to maintain current subsidies to 2022 and then phase into the new system by 2024.
Agriculture cuts across many policy areas - environmental, food, trade, rural access and planning- and affects aesthetically how much of how the UK looks visually, and how people feel about it. Also, land planning and investment can take place over very long time horizons (hard infrastructure is needed like drainage, tractors, sheds and plant equipment, and things need time to breed, grow and mature; it's not all annual crops.
Given that, and the complexity of putting in place a totally new system, in a world where current CAP subsidies can represent up to 55% of farm income, a decent transition period is probably necessary.
That said, I expect he'll want to show some wins on it (politically) by GE2022. I imagine by some headline grabbing caps or scrapping of payment systems for the largest/richest landowners.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
Why did they change the wording of the question? They are totally different, as one asks if membership is a good thing, while the other asks if the EU is good in general.
Don't know, but at the moment I'm focussing on why the UK figure dropped around the time Blair came to power.
Looks like a continuation of a gradual decline from the start of ERM membership (and subsequent departure)
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
Nothing to do with his politics. In this climate a DPP who does not prosecute 75 sexual assault cases is going to have a serious problem in explaining to the victims why they did not receive justice
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
When he moved from the non-partisan DPP role to a much more political job as an MP, he should have known and expected that decisions he did or didn’t make as DPP would come back to haunt him one day.
If he had stayed non-political the criticism of his decision would undoubtedly be different, but when he’s sitting on the Opposition front bench it comes with the job.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
Nothing to do with his politics. In this climate a DPP who does not prosecute 75 sexual assault cases is going to have a serious problem in explaining to the victims why they did not receive justice
The answer is very simple.
Looking at it the victims understood at the time.
The fault here lies with the Parole Board, and the judge to an extent.
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
Actually, a more valid question for William to ask himself (although he will struggle to) is what the EU did after the late 1980s to turn majority support in the UK for it being a good thing into a negative, which continued to dwindle (with one or two minor spasms) all the way to 2011, and beyond.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
I wouldn't blame it on New Labour (who were very popular in their first term), so much as the triumph of the Eurosceptics over Majorism. This made Anti-Europeanism mainstream, by putting it at the heart of a previously pro - European Tory party. At that time Haugue favoured quite eurosceptic rhetoric.
According to the BBC, Warboys was sentenced to a minimum of eight years in jail. Presumably Starmer expected him to serve much longer (not that that should have stopped them prosecuting for further crimes).
It'll be interesting to see if he comments on this. In a way he shouldn't get involved in something that's no longer his responsibility, but I think he should make it clear that Warboys should have served at least 20 years.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
Why did they change the wording of the question? They are totally different, as one asks if membership is a good thing, while the other asks if the EU is good in general.
Don't know, but at the moment I'm focussing on why the UK figure dropped around the time Blair came to power.
Looks like a continuation of a gradual decline from the start of ERM membership (and subsequent departure)
No. That was the fault of the British tabloid press and the foaming swivel-eyed irreconcilables in the Conservative Party, dummy.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
Nothing to do with his politics. In this climate a DPP who does not prosecute 75 sexual assault cases is going to have a serious problem in explaining to the victims why they did not receive justice
The answer is very simple.
Looking at it the victims understood at the time.
The fault here lies with the Parole Board, and the judge to an extent.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
When he moved from the non-partisan DPP role to a much more political job as an MP, he should have known and expected that decisions he did or didn’t make as DPP would come back to haunt him one day.
If he had stayed non-political the criticism of his decision would undoubtedly be different, but when he’s sitting on the Opposition front bench it comes with the job.
Agreed ,however the allegation was " he is in real trouble now on this"from IMO the most partisan conservative on here .
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
Indeed so. He’ll always be a pervert, but the law says he’s been locked up for long enough.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
Nothing to do with his politics. In this climate a DPP who does not prosecute 75 sexual assault cases is going to have a serious problem in explaining to the victims why they did not receive justice
The answer is very simple.
Looking at it the victims understood at the time.
The fault here lies with the Parole Board, and the judge to an extent.
Everyone deserves justice.
Would it have been in the interest of making 75 further victims go through a trial, be attacked by defence counsel and relive it all over again.
With the risk of one or two crumbling in the witness box and giving him a chance?
The assumption was that 12 convictions and 75 left on file would ensure he would be in prison for a lot longer than 10 years.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
Nothing to do with his politics. In this climate a DPP who does not prosecute 75 sexual assault cases is going to have a serious problem in explaining to the victims why they did not receive justice
The answer is very simple.
Looking at it the victims understood at the time.
The fault here lies with the Parole Board, and the judge to an extent.
The judge is set strict limits within which he can operate when sentencing. Life Imprisonment was the maximum he could give. The sentencing guidelines are here.
In spite of the number of victims I would think it hard to put the rapes into anything other than Category 2 or 3. As such the sentencing seems to have been in line with the guidelines.
When it comes to the parole board, they are not there to re-judge the trial or re-sentence. They are there top see if there are any circumstances from during the time in incarceration to deny parole.
The fault here lies with the political or administrative decisions that lead to these guidelines. It is they which appear to have tied the hands of the judge.
It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
@Casino_Royale Saw this is the previous thread and wanted to reply. Many of those who are in their 30s are millennials. Millennials are those born after 1981, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be an agreement among demographers on the specific cut off date.
I should probably say those born after 1992 then. 25 or under.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
As someone the same age I have to agree, I feel as if have little in common with someone aged 25, but a great deal in common with someone aged 40.
I grew up without mobile phones, didn't get the internet at home until I was seventeen (and even then it was an odd, geeky thing with no social media etc). 9/11 happened shortly after I left school (a 25 year old would have been just eight at the time!) and while I did march in the stop the war protest, apart from that politics just wasn't on my radar as a young adult - not in the way it seems to be an essential part of the lives of the next generation.
There is an argument to be made that pre 1985 is the arse end of Gen X, if you count a 'generation' as 20 years (boomers, 45 - 64, X 65- 84, millenials, 85 onwards), however most strategists these days tend to put those born in the late 70s to early 80s in something called the "oregon trail" generation (named after a popular American video game from the time), "a micro-generation that serves as a bridge between the disaffection of Gen X and the blithe optimism of Millennials... remembering a time before the digital age, but barely..."
I think the reason we stand as an odd micro-generation is because our upbringing was analog but our adult lives have been far more digital, creating quite a disconnect in the way we were raised and educated and what our expectations were (home ownership, steady job, old "pre digital" skills), vs what they turned out to be. FWIW, most of my friends are either my own age or older, I find it much harder to relate to people a great deal younger than me.
As to how all this relates to politics, personally I feel quite disaffected in the way the life we were promised / were educated for turned out to not exist, but also completely alienated from the lefty identity politics brand of thinking, which seems like a completely alien and very recent American import.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
I wouldn't blame it on New Labour (who were very popular in their first term), so much as the triumph of the Eurosceptics over Majorism. This made Anti-Europeanism mainstream, by putting it at the heart of a previously pro - European Tory party. At that time Haugue favoured quite eurosceptic rhetoric.
Major had a europhile policy at the heart of his economic strategy which dramatically collapsed within months of his relection with significant economic fallout for many hundreds of thousands of families.
I'd argue that did far more for euroscepticism than the actions of his backbenchers.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Why did they change the wording of the question? They are totally different, as one asks if membership is a good thing, while the other asks if the EU is good in general.
Don't know, but at the moment I'm focussing on why the UK figure dropped around the time Blair came to power.
Well, it dropped after 1992, for obvious reasons. But, then there was a partial recovery from 2000-07, perhaps due to the fact that Euro membership ceased to be a viable proposition.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
When he moved from the non-partisan DPP role to a much more political job as an MP, he should have known and expected that decisions he did or didn’t make as DPP would come back to haunt him one day.
If he had stayed non-political the criticism of his decision would undoubtedly be different, but when he’s sitting on the Opposition front bench it comes with the job.
Agreed ,however the allegation was " he is in real trouble now on this"from IMO the most partisan conservative on here .
You seem to ignore the anger that is going to follow an 8 year sentence for Warboys conviction and that the DPP headed by Starmer did not prosecute 75 sexual allegations. Nothing to do with loyallty to the conservative party or otherwise, it is justice that the victims deserve and look like they are not going to have
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
I agree that it's very disturbing that Worboys is being released, but why would Starmer be in potential trouble over it?
He was DPP and did not prosecute over 75 assault cases.
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
What are you alleging ?
I don't think Big_G is alleging anything. It sounds as though the decision not to prosecute the 75 cases is a matter of record.
I suppose because he is now a Labour politician does not colour his partisan view then.
Nothing to do with his politics. In this climate a DPP who does not prosecute 75 sexual assault cases is going to have a serious problem in explaining to the victims why they did not receive justice
The answer is very simple.
Looking at it the victims understood at the time.
The fault here lies with the Parole Board, and the judge to an extent.
Everyone deserves justice.
Would it have been in the interest of making 75 further victims go through a trial, be attacked by defence counsel and relive it all over again.
With the risk of one or two crumbling in the witness box and giving him a chance?
The assumption was that 12 convictions and 75 left on file would ensure he would be in prison for a lot longer than 10 years.
If a victim said "look, it's not worth the trouble", then fine. But when the alleged offences are as serious as this, they should seek to prosecute where they think there is a case to answer.
I agree that what he was convicted of should have resulted in a 20 year minimum sentence. But that's not what happened and Starmer was stupid to think Warboys would serve much more than the minimum term.
I bet he didn't think when he made that decision that it would come back to bite eight years later.
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
Indeed so. He’ll always be a pervert, but the law says he’s been locked up for long enough.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
I'd have thought a life sentence would be appropriate for multiple rapes.
Starmer in some potential trouble over this Worboys release it seems. Is Yvette deliberately stirring the pot? ttps://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
How on earth does he serve only 10 years for such a long list of serious and premeditated offences? That seems rather lenient, even though he didn’t kill anyone.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
Indeed so. He’ll always be a pervert, but the law says he’s been locked up for long enough.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
The only way the judge would have been allowed to give a sentence of more than 10 -13 years would have been if there were extreme and multiple examples of certain behaviour:
- Severe psychological or physical harm - Pregnancy or STI as a consequence of offence - Additional degradation/humiliation - Abduction - Prolonged detention/sustained incident - Violence or threats of violence (beyond that which is inherent in the offence) - Forced/uninvited entry into victim’s home - Victim is particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances
I am not saying I agree with the sentence, just that I think the guidelines themselves severely limited what the judge was able to do.
It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
I should probably say those born after 1992 then. 25 or under.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
As someone the same age I have to agree, I feel as if have little in common with someone aged 25, but a great deal in common with someone aged 40.
I grew up without mobile phones, didn't get the internet at home until I was seventeen (and even then it was an odd, geeky thing with no social media etc). 9/11 happened shortly after I left school (a 25 year old would have been just eight at the time!) and while I did march in the stop the war protest, apart from that politics just wasn't on my radar as a young adult - not in the way it seems to be an essential part of the lives of the next generation.
There is an argument to be made that pre 1985 is the arse end of Gen X, if you count a 'generation' as 20 years (boomers, 45 - 64, X 65- 84, millenials, 85 onwards), however most strategists these days tend to put those born in the late 70s to early 80s in something called the "oregon trail" generation (named after a popular American video game from the time), "a micro-generation that serves as a bridge between the disaffection of Gen X and the blithe optimism of Millennials... remembering a time before the digital age, but barely..."
I think the reason we stand as an odd micro-generation is because our upbringing was analog but our adult lives have been far more digital, creating quite a disconnect in the way we were raised and educated and what our expectations were (home ownership, steady job, old "pre digital" skills), vs what they turned out to be. FWIW, most of my friends are either my own age or older, I find it much harder to relate to people a great deal younger than me.
As to how all this relates to politics, personally I feel quite disaffected in the way the life we were promised / were educated for turned out to not exist, but also completely alienated from the lefty identity politics brand of thinking, which seems like a completely alien and very recent American import.
Exactly. You sum it all up far better than I could.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
There are similar (temporary and limited) spikes when he was relected in 2001 and 2005 as well, but the trend is clear.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
Indeed so. He’ll always be a pervert, but the law says he’s been locked up for long enough.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
I'd have thought a life sentence would be appropriate for multiple rapes.
He was only convicted of a single rape though. With his MO of Rohypnol and similar drugs a lot of his victims sadly had very little recollection of their ordeals. This was probably a factor in the decision to only prosecute a small number of crimes, in the hope that the judge would take the wider pattern of allegations into account when sentencing.
I find it difficult to see how any life sentence results in only a decade in prison. Report from the sentencing hearing in 2009, the Judge said that he would be help indefinitely, for a minimum of eight years, until the parole board decided he was no longer a danger to women. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/21/john-worboys-cab-driver-jail
So it’s the parole board who have decided he’s seen enough of a prison cell.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
I should probably say those born after 1992 then. 25 or under.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
As someone the same age I have to agree, I feel as if have little in common with someone aged 25, but a great deal in common with someone aged 40.
I grew up without mobile phones, didn't get the internet at home until I was seventeen (and even then it was an odd, geeky thing with no social media etc). 9/11 happened shortly after I left school (a 25 year old would have been just eight at the time!) and while I did march in the stop the war protest, apart from that politics just wasn't on my radar as a young adult - not in the way it seems to be an essential part of the lives of the next generation.
There is an argument to be made that pre 1985 is the arse end of Gen X, if you count a 'generation' as 20 years (boomers, 45 - 64, X 65- 84, millenials, 85 onwards), however most strategists these days tend to put those born in the late 70s to early 80s in something called the "oregon trail" generation (named after a popular American video game from the time), "a micro-generation that serves as a bridge between the disaffection of Gen X and the blithe optimism of Millennials... remembering a time before the digital age, but barely..."
I think the reason we stand as an odd micro-generation is because our upbringing was analog but our adult lives have been far more digital, creating quite a disconnect in the way we were raised and educated and what our expectations were (home ownership, steady job, old "pre digital" skills), vs what they turned out to be. FWIW, most of my friends are either my own age or older, I find it much harder to relate to people a great deal younger than me.
As to how all this relates to politics, personally I feel quite disaffected in the way the life we were promised / were educated for turned out to not exist, but also completely alienated from the lefty identity politics brand of thinking, which seems like a completely alien and very recent American import.
Exactly. You sum it all up far better than I could.
As another 'technically a millenial', I'd agree as well.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
Hardcore euroscepticism was mainstream from the 1970's to the mid 1980's, but was mostly favoured by the Left. It became a mostly right wing movement after 1992.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
Nothing at all to do with the relentless drive to federalism, of course!
@Casino_Royale Saw this is the previous thread and wanted to reply. Many of those who are in their 30s are millennials. Millennials are those born after 1981, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be an agreement among demographers on the specific cut off date.
I should probably say those born after 1992 then. 25 or under.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
As someone the same age I have to agree, I feel as if have little in common with someone aged 25, but a great deal in common with someone aged 40.
I grew up without mobile phones, didn't get the internet at home until I was seventeen (and even then it was an odd, geeky thing with no social media etc). 9/11 happened shortly after I left school (a 25 year old would have been just eight at the time!) and while I did march in the stop the war protest, apart from that politics just wasn't on my radar as a young adult - not in the way it seems to be an essential part of the lives of the next generation.
There is an argument to be made that pre 1985 is the arse end of Gen X, if you count a 'generation' as 20 years (boomers, 45 - 64, X 65- 84, millenials, 85 onwards), however most strategists these days tend to put those born in the late 70s to early 80s in something called the "oregon trail" generation (named after a popular American video game from the time), "a micro-generation that serves as a bridge between the disaffection of Gen X and the blithe optimism of Millennials... remembering a time before the digital age, but barely..."
I think the reason we stand as an odd micro-generation is because our upbringing was analog but our adult lives have been far more digital, creating quite a disconnect in the way we were raised and educated and what our expectations were (home ownership, steady job, old "pre digital" skills), vs what they turned out to be. FWIW, most of my friends are either my own age or older, I find it much harder to relate to people a great deal younger than me.
As to how all this relates to politics, personally I feel quite disaffected in the way the life we were promised / were educated for turned out to not exist, but also completely alienated from the lefty identity politics brand of thinking, which seems like a completely alien and very recent American import.
A very astute comment. I’ve just turned 40 and can see where you come from. I was 21 before I had a mobile phone, but worked with computers of various sorts since I was about 13 and made a career in IT.
Yes I think the tariff should probably have been appealed at the time. It was an indeterminate sentence but with only an 8 year minimum tariff. Presumably release from such sentences is purely [rightly] based on behaviour and rehabilitation, not a fresh appraisal of the original offence.
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
Indeed so. He’ll always be a pervert, but the law says he’s been locked up for long enough.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
I'd have thought a life sentence would be appropriate for multiple rapes.
He was only convicted of a single rape though. With his MO of Rohypnol and similar drugs a lot of his victims sadly had very little recollection of their ordeals. This was probably a factor in the decision to only prosecute a small number of crimes, in the hope that the judge would take the wider pattern of allegations into account when sentencing.
I find it difficult to see how any life sentence results in only a decade in prison. Report from the sentencing hearing in 2009, the Judge said that he would be help indefinitely, for a minimum of eight years, until the parole board decided he was no longer a danger to women. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/21/john-worboys-cab-driver-jail
So it’s the parole board who have decided he’s seen enough of a prison cell.
Yes, I see, albeit he was convicted of 5 sexual assaults, and 12 drugging offences.
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.
Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
Or the Germans thought the Euro would benefit them economically by being Deutschmark lite ( they were right for them) and didn’t mind losing out on the sovereignty ( though many Germans I know bemoaned the introduction of the “Teuro” for years - an allusion to prices allegedly going up as ”teuer” is “dear” in German), and the Brits drew the opposite conclusion ( again correctly for us, having been “inoculated” by the ERM experience). Throw in a bit of Jacques Delors in 88 just before the chart saying national democracy could be overridden by the European back door, and there’s your chart.
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
I’m not sure what I remember of the headlines at the time, reporting of these things does tend to emphasise the life sentence aspect rather than the actual tariff handed down.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
"Rehabilitate" is an inappropriate metaphor here. It presupposes that you start off good, become bad, and can be reconverted to goodness. That possibly works for drink and drugs and drifting into a life of shoplifting or whatever, but sex isn't something you drift into. It seems probable to me that someone who has raped hundreds of women is hardwired to want to rape women at a level which locking him up for ten years and giving him a bit of CBT or whatever isn't going to reach.
Indeed so. He’ll always be a pervert, but the law says he’s been locked up for long enough.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
I'd have thought a life sentence would be appropriate for multiple rapes.
He was only convicted of a single rape though. With his MO of Rohypnol and similar drugs a lot of his victims sadly had very little recollection of their ordeals. This was probably a factor in the decision to only prosecute a small number of crimes, in the hope that the judge would take the wider pattern of allegations into account when sentencing.
I find it difficult to see how any life sentence results in only a decade in prison. Report from the sentencing hearing in 2009, the Judge said that he would be help indefinitely, for a minimum of eight years, until the parole board decided he was no longer a danger to women. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/21/john-worboys-cab-driver-jail
So it’s the parole board who have decided he’s seen enough of a prison cell.
Yes, I see, albeit he was convicted of 5 sexual assaults, and 12 drugging offences.
From reading that report with the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure the original trial judge could have done a whole lot more, given what Warboys was actually convicted of (as opposed to merely being accused).
From reading that report with the benefit of hindsight, I’m not sure the original trial judge could have done a whole lot more, given what Warboys was actually convicted of (as opposed to merely being accused).
Which makes the reason for not prosecuting further cases all the more questionable.
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
It is amazing to consider the change. Not to start a four yorkshireman sketch, but I'm also 31, and my primary school had only one computer in it, which we never used once. I remember completing a homework assignment in secondary school by going over to my father's place and using a laptop for the first time, and that was pretty fancy. I'm sure there were kids who had houses with more advanced stuff, but I recall trying to share an emulator and pokemon ROM files with people on floppy discs and several people couldn't figure out such an easy transfer. Certainly by the time I got to university it seemed normal for people to be on Facebook, but even so.
I think it is impossible not to marvel at the pace of change of phones and computers since one grew up and not feel more associated with the elder generation's thinking, as it certainly makes us sound old!
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
Up until the age of thirteen, I'd never even seen a mobile phone, still less used one - I remember walking for a long time, and queuing, for public payphones with bags of 10p and 20p coins in my pocket - and had never even seen the Internet.
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
Up until the age of thirteen, I'd never even seen a mobile phone, still less used one - I remember walking for a long time, and queuing, for public payphones with bags of 10p and 20p coins in my pocket - and had never even seen the Internet.
This is horse and cart stuff to real millennials.
We were the first real millenials! These millenials mark 2 have just totally dominated the perception of us!
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
Up until the age of thirteen, I'd never even seen a mobile phone, still less used one - I remember walking for a long time, and queuing, for public payphones with bags of 10p and 20p coins in my pocket - and had never even seen the Internet.
This is horse and cart stuff to real millennials.
Those of us only a few years older remember queuing up at payphones at university. Let’s just say there weren’t enough of them!
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
It is amazing to consider the change. Not to start a four yorkshireman sketch, but I'm also 31, and my primary school had only one computer in it, which we never used once. I remember completing a homework assignment in secondary school by going over to my father's place and using a laptop for the first time, and that was pretty fancy. I'm sure there were kids who had houses with more advanced stuff, but I recall trying to share an emulator and pokemon ROM files with people on floppy discs and several people couldn't figure out such an easy transfer. Certainly by the time I got to university it seemed normal for people to be on Facebook, but even so.
I think it is impossible not to marvel at the pace of change of phones and computers since one grew up and not feel more associated with the elder generation's thinking, as it certainly makes us sound old!
I can remember having black and white TV! (Sad face)
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
It is amazing to consider the change. Not to start a four yorkshireman sketch, but I'm also 31, and my primary school had only one computer in it, which we never used once. I remember completing a homework assignment in secondary school by going over to my father's place and using a laptop for the first time, and that was pretty fancy. I'm sure there were kids who had houses with more advanced stuff, but I recall trying to share an emulator and pokemon ROM files with people on floppy discs and several people couldn't figure out such an easy transfer. Certainly by the time I got to university it seemed normal for people to be on Facebook, but even so.
I think it is impossible not to marvel at the pace of change of phones and computers since one grew up and not feel more associated with the elder generation's thinking, as it certainly makes us sound old!
I can remember having black and white TV! (Sad face)
And they were tiny to boot, you poor bastards.
I often reflect on how the hell, when settee distance to tv seems to have remained relatively stable over the years, that any of us managed to watch things or play games before colour and a decent size of screen. And sport before high definition?!
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
I am incredibly thankful that I grew up in a world without social media, camera phones and such. This thankfully means that my youthful indescretions (and there were many) are a distant and fading memory rather than etched forever on someone's insta/facebook account, that I don't feel the need to broadcast every waking second of my life...
I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
I also think todays teenagers and twenty somethings must have *horrible* self image problems due to the way everybody feels obligated to lead "perfect" lives on social media. Certainly a quick glance at instagram makes me feel miserable about my expanding middle-aged paunch, and I'm not an impressionable young woman constantly trying to measure up to impossible beauty standards!
And I seriously worry about how smartphones and apps are designed to be addictive and keep you using the product for longer, a friend of mine's five year old kid is literally glued to their iPad from dawn to dusk - surely that can't be good for a child's development?
One other thing politics-wise, a friend of mine dropped out of uni in their first year - too much partying - and went back to uni aged 30. After 3 years they were incredibly politicised in that ugly American identity politics way, getting annoyed with me for being "old fashioned" and "stuck in my ways" for refusing to believe there are 33 genders etc, to the point where in the end I just stopped hanging out with them.
In short, I really, really, really find it hard to identify with anyone under the age of 30 and feel as if their lived experience of growing up is vastly and unknowably different to mine.
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
It is amazing to consider the change. Not to start a four yorkshireman sketch, but I'm also 31, and my primary school had only one computer in it, which we never used once. I remember completing a homework assignment in secondary school by going over to my father's place and using a laptop for the first time, and that was pretty fancy. I'm sure there were kids who had houses with more advanced stuff, but I recall trying to share an emulator and pokemon ROM files with people on floppy discs and several people couldn't figure out such an easy transfer. Certainly by the time I got to university it seemed normal for people to be on Facebook, but even so.
I think it is impossible not to marvel at the pace of change of phones and computers since one grew up and not feel more associated with the elder generation's thinking, as it certainly makes us sound old!
I can remember having black and white TV! (Sad face)
My dad kept an old black and white TV for upstairs. I can remember watching the 1993 FA Cup Final Replay on it (my mum was watching something on the "proper" TV).
I suspect my upbringing was unusual for my generation. We used to spend school holidays in my grandfather's house near Bolsover which was built in the 1950s and barely touched since. Hot water came courtesy of the Rayburn in the kitchen.
On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
Up until the age of thirteen, I'd never even seen a mobile phone, still less used one - I remember walking for a long time, and queuing, for public payphones with bags of 10p and 20p coins in my pocket - and had never even seen the Internet.
This is horse and cart stuff to real millennials.
I'll never the look on the face of my 21 year old colleague when a few years ago when I told her what my first mobile phone contract included.
In 1995 For £40 a month I got 200 inclusive minutes only to people on the same network (Cellnet) no inclusive texts, no data, it was 12p per text, and if you wanted to call people on another network it was 40p a minute, which wasn't part of your inclusive minutes.
Tracking how much you had used to was a challenge.
According to the Times it has been kicked into the long grass. Too many powerful Tories amongst the wealthy landowners coining it from the larger subsidies.
Really? Who might they be? And how come, in that case, that Gove has said that even in the transitional period there will be a cap on the amounts claimable:
Comments
The one additional point I would like him to have made is that we should ensure we do not see the rules changing every few years as they have under the CAP.
He would be an excellent CotE or PM.
I think the Dems need to look down a generation, to those in their 50s, if they’re going to succeed.
You need to sack up.
My comment appeared to have triggered you.
I gusss the answer to my question was yes.
Getting insults from a Tyndall is expected but I thought you were better than that.
Otherwise it may be that they do indeed have to wait for Joseph Kennedy III in 2024 to get a Democrat back in the White House.
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/948967089066381318
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42559845
It was the judge that gave the sentence, it wasn’t appealed at the time for being unduly lenient was it?
Plus Sir Keir wasn’t on the parole board.
Why would Starmer be in trouble ? For the original sentence ?
The market settles at 2359: 59 on 29th March 2019, but the exact details on the BF market are slightly more convoluted, and only give room for an hour extension.
https://order-order.com/2018/01/04/starmer-dpp-didnt-prosecute-worboys-75-sex-assaults/
Looks like he could be in real trouble on this
I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
or this
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/03/former-director-public-prosecutions-victims-law-keir-starmer
"Writing in the Guardian on Monday, Keir Starmer QC calls for a "radical review" because most victims of sexual violence or assaults do not have sufficient confidence in the police and courts to report what happened. From a victim's point of view the system "is hardly fit for purpose", he writes."
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
I've been reading up on it today and he's pledged to maintain current subsidies to 2022 and then phase into the new system by 2024.
Agriculture cuts across many policy areas - environmental, food, trade, rural access and planning- and affects aesthetically how much of how the UK looks visually, and how people feel about it. Also, land planning and investment can take place over very long time horizons (hard infrastructure is needed like drainage, tractors, sheds and plant equipment, and things need time to breed, grow and mature; it's not all annual crops.
Given that, and the complexity of putting in place a totally new system, in a world where current CAP subsidies can represent up to 55% of farm income, a decent transition period is probably necessary.
That said, I expect he'll want to show some wins on it (politically) by GE2022. I imagine by some headline grabbing caps or scrapping of payment systems for the largest/richest landowners.
But yes, whatever your view of his sentence he should be released after serving the necessary time, assuming he had behaved himself inside and engaged with his rehabilitation programme.
Does look like a very poor decision from the DPP at the time to neither appeal the tariff nor follow though with more prosecutions though.
But I think the drop in support you ascribe might have been a proxy against New Labour's advocation of the euro.
If he had stayed non-political the criticism of his decision would undoubtedly be different, but when he’s sitting on the Opposition front bench it comes with the job.
Looking at it the victims understood at the time.
The fault here lies with the Parole Board, and the judge to an extent.
Of course to us the answer is obvious.
It'll be interesting to see if he comments on this. In a way he shouldn't get involved in something that's no longer his responsibility, but I think he should make it clear that Warboys should have served at least 20 years.
Many people will disagree, IMHO the eight year tariff was way too lenient, should have been 15-20 given the pattern of offending - but then I’m not a judge, and we have judges and appeals processes so that we get these decisions right.
The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.
I include myself in that.
But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
With the risk of one or two crumbling in the witness box and giving him a chance?
The assumption was that 12 convictions and 75 left on file would ensure he would be in prison for a lot longer than 10 years.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Final_Sexual_Offences_Definitive_Guideline_content_web1.pdf
In spite of the number of victims I would think it hard to put the rapes into anything other than Category 2 or 3. As such the sentencing seems to have been in line with the guidelines.
When it comes to the parole board, they are not there to re-judge the trial or re-sentence. They are there top see if there are any circumstances from during the time in incarceration to deny parole.
The fault here lies with the political or administrative decisions that lead to these guidelines. It is they which appear to have tied the hands of the judge.
I grew up without mobile phones, didn't get the internet at home until I was seventeen (and even then it was an odd, geeky thing with no social media etc). 9/11 happened shortly after I left school (a 25 year old would have been just eight at the time!) and while I did march in the stop the war protest, apart from that politics just wasn't on my radar as a young adult - not in the way it seems to be an essential part of the lives of the next generation.
There is an argument to be made that pre 1985 is the arse end of Gen X, if you count a 'generation' as 20 years (boomers, 45 - 64, X 65- 84, millenials, 85 onwards), however most strategists these days tend to put those born in the late 70s to early 80s in something called the "oregon trail" generation (named after a popular American video game from the time), "a micro-generation that serves as a bridge between the disaffection of Gen X and the blithe optimism of Millennials... remembering a time before the digital age, but barely..."
I think the reason we stand as an odd micro-generation is because our upbringing was analog but our adult lives have been far more digital, creating quite a disconnect in the way we were raised and educated and what our expectations were (home ownership, steady job, old "pre digital" skills), vs what they turned out to be. FWIW, most of my friends are either my own age or older, I find it much harder to relate to people a great deal younger than me.
As to how all this relates to politics, personally I feel quite disaffected in the way the life we were promised / were educated for turned out to not exist, but also completely alienated from the lefty identity politics brand of thinking, which seems like a completely alien and very recent American import.
I'd argue that did far more for euroscepticism than the actions of his backbenchers.
I agree that what he was convicted of should have resulted in a 20 year minimum sentence. But that's not what happened and Starmer was stupid to think Warboys would serve much more than the minimum term.
I bet he didn't think when he made that decision that it would come back to bite eight years later.
- Severe psychological or physical harm
- Pregnancy or STI as a consequence of offence
- Additional degradation/humiliation
- Abduction
- Prolonged detention/sustained incident
- Violence or threats of violence (beyond that which is inherent in the offence)
- Forced/uninvited entry into victim’s home
- Victim is particularly vulnerable due to personal circumstances
I am not saying I agree with the sentence, just that I think the guidelines themselves severely limited what the judge was able to do.
I think you're reading too much into it.
I find it difficult to see how any life sentence results in only a decade in prison.
Report from the sentencing hearing in 2009, the Judge said that he would be help indefinitely, for a minimum of eight years, until the parole board decided he was no longer a danger to women. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/apr/21/john-worboys-cab-driver-jail
So it’s the parole board who have decided he’s seen enough of a prison cell.
I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).
I think it is impossible not to marvel at the pace of change of phones and computers since one grew up and not feel more associated with the elder generation's thinking, as it certainly makes us sound old!
This is horse and cart stuff to real millennials.
I often reflect on how the hell, when settee distance to tv seems to have remained relatively stable over the years, that any of us managed to watch things or play games before colour and a decent size of screen. And sport before high definition?!
I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
I also think todays teenagers and twenty somethings must have *horrible* self image problems due to the way everybody feels obligated to lead "perfect" lives on social media. Certainly a quick glance at instagram makes me feel miserable about my expanding middle-aged paunch, and I'm not an impressionable young woman constantly trying to measure up to impossible beauty standards!
And I seriously worry about how smartphones and apps are designed to be addictive and keep you using the product for longer, a friend of mine's five year old kid is literally glued to their iPad from dawn to dusk - surely that can't be good for a child's development?
One other thing politics-wise, a friend of mine dropped out of uni in their first year - too much partying - and went back to uni aged 30. After 3 years they were incredibly politicised in that ugly American identity politics way, getting annoyed with me for being "old fashioned" and "stuck in my ways" for refusing to believe there are 33 genders etc, to the point where in the end I just stopped hanging out with them.
In short, I really, really, really find it hard to identify with anyone under the age of 30 and feel as if their lived experience of growing up is vastly and unknowably different to mine.
I suspect my upbringing was unusual for my generation. We used to spend school holidays in my grandfather's house near Bolsover which was built in the 1950s and barely touched since. Hot water came courtesy of the Rayburn in the kitchen.
In 1995 For £40 a month I got 200 inclusive minutes only to people on the same network (Cellnet) no inclusive texts, no data, it was 12p per text, and if you wanted to call people on another network it was 40p a minute, which wasn't part of your inclusive minutes.
Tracking how much you had used to was a challenge.
Bill shock was fun.