The reluctance to correlate enthusiasm for the EU with the only party unequivocally being in favour still being at 6% is really getting quite funny. When are the remainers going to accept that a lot of people may not like this government for a lot of reasons but they do give a damn about the EU.
I know quite a few people who like the EU but aren’t voting LD, they are voting Labour. The reality is many Remainers are voting for the party which they believe is best placed to limit the Tories’ ability to impose their agenda. They see that party as being Labour, not the LDs.
Quite so, and there seems little reason that will change - while I dare say given the confused messaging there are some people voting Labour out of remainian zeal, I doubt it is that significant a bunch vs those who might wish we were remaining but are resigned to it, and are attempting to simply oppose the government's own confused agenda.
Up to a point Lord Copper. Theresa May cannot sack anyone without ending her own career, so the net extent of the reshuffle was the square root of bugger all. Every minister anyone has ever heard of is still in place. Of course voters don't care -- nothing happened. Was it just reporters or were some Tories getting in a tizz? That's another question.
She sacked Justine Greening and as far as I know she is still PM
The three me Minister.
You said TM cannot sack anyone and she did
Greening resigned.
There are many layers of resignation. Heck, Damian Green was 'asked to resign' for heaven's sake' If someone who was intended to be moved to another department refuses to go, and then leaves, is that true resignation? Sure, probably. Although other people apparently refused to go and were able to remain in post, while Greening didn't - was that truly just her own choice, or was she essentially told she didn't have the pull the others who refused had, and she would not be permitted to remain in her existing position, and so she was in effect resigned when she would have been happy to stay where she was if she could?
Certainly none of their own pronouncements on the subject can be trusted, such things are one area I think it entirely fair to say politicians will lie through their teeth about, so whatever either side claims can be discounted.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
I agree Nick. Everything about this case stinks. Sadly, politicians only care about being tough on crime when it is a high profile case that is in the news.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
The prosecution can't appeal it, that's the job of the Attorney General.
It was said the the charging/evidential test for the other crimes weren't met in most of the other cases.
The presumption of many was that he'd be staying in prison for a lot longer.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Government legal experts thought they would win the A50 case too. And every time the government loses a case they presumably had experts arguing they were in the right too. The guy is taking advice, maybe that advice will say there is little prospect of success for just such a reason, but we shall find out, I see no issue with taking advice on the possibilities, even if it is motivated on reactionary desire for a good headline. That would only be a problem if action is pushed later knowing it is legally hopeless.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
Yes, I largely agree with you.
But, I don't think there's harm in reviewing the evidence behind the Parole Board's decision, dispassionately, to double-check the right decision has been made.
To fabricate him remaining in jail for political, and not judicial, reasons would be the wrong thing to do.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
The prosecution can't appeal it, that's the job of the Attorney General.
It was said the the charging/evidential test for the other crimes weren't met in most of the other cases.
The presumption of many was that he'd be staying in prison for a lot longer.
Weren't the rules on interdeterminate sentences changed by Ken Clarke in 2012, setting in motion the chain of events leading to release?
Up to a point Lord Copper. Theresa May cannot sack anyone without ending her own career, so the net extent of the reshuffle was the square root of bugger all. Every minister anyone has ever heard of is still in place. Of course voters don't care -- nothing happened. Was it just reporters or were some Tories getting in a tizz? That's another question.
She sacked Justine Greening and as far as I know she is still PM
The three people who know who Justine Greening is would point out the Prime Minister offered her DWP which is not clearly a demotion. And according to the last thread it is Nick Timothy who is now Prime Minister.
You said TM cannot sack anyone and she did
Greening resigned.
She had no choice
I can't say I was bowled over by Justine Greening, but I really don't like the way Nick Timothy operates.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
Not entirely convinced by the ‘Corbyn frightens people’ narrative. I think it’s fairly obvious the opposition to Corbyn is ideological. People are not voting on competence, they voting on values. If immigration is a high priority, you don’t like diversity, multiculturalism etc it doesn’t matter how ‘competent’ Labour are, ultimately you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a high priority, you like/are at ease with diversity, multiculturalism and have a range of socially liberal positions you’re likely to vote Labour.
The country is split down the middle, the GE told us that, the polls after it have told us that, this poll isn’t a surprise. Even under a leader right wingers didn’t dislike as much, the polling would be much the same. Labour are not going to transform themselves into a Blue Labour style, ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a significant part of Labour’s coalition would walk away from them and whether they’d gain enough WWC social conservatives to balance it out remains to be seen.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
No, you are probably right. I appreciate for active politicians it would be hard to make such a point without being seen to be take the side of that awful human being, to divorce some of the implications from the specific details of this case, but we can hope that if precipitate action is taken it is not unintentionally harmful. Best case scenarios improvements do arise.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
How well the final Brexit deal is sold (and however the general economic outlook is) will determine how much leeway they get on those two I think. But bottom line is if we make it the full term this time they'll effectively have been in power for 13 years and been the dominant party for 3 elections, and doing so again won't be easy.
Up to a point Lord Copper. Theresa May cannot sack anyone without ending her own career, so the net extent of the reshuffle was the square root of bugger all. Every minister anyone has ever heard of is still in place. Of course voters don't care -- nothing happened. Was it just reporters or were some Tories getting in a tizz? That's another question.
She sacked Justine Greening and as far as I know she is still PM
The three people who know who Justine Greening is would point out the Prime Minister offered her DWP which is not clearly a demotion. And according to the last thread it is Nick Timothy who is now Prime Minister.
You said TM cannot sack anyone and she did
Greening resigned.
She had no choice
Greening did not resign. She did not have a cabinet post to resign from. She had ceased to be education secretary, the moment May told her that the post was no longer hers and had not been appointed to another post. Therefore she did not resign. She declined to accept another job in the cabinet -which is quite different.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
The prosecution can't appeal it, that's the job of the Attorney General.
It was said the the charging/evidential test for the other crimes weren't met in most of the other cases.
The presumption of many was that he'd be staying in prison for a lot longer.
Weren't the rules on interdeterminate sentences changed by Ken Clarke in 2012, setting in motion the chain of events leading to release?
Not quite, Ken Clarke wasn't a fan of the way they were being used.
However it was a 2012 ECHR judgment that indeterminate sentences were arbitrary and unlawful, and Chris Grayling implemented the ECHR ruling.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
Not entirely you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a significant part of Labour’s coalition would walk away from them and whether they’d gain enough WWC social conservatives to balance it out remains to be seen.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Both lost, but Corbyn performed better than Ed Miliband. If him being hard left was such an issue, that would have not happened. Prior to the GE, it was not thought that Remainers would flock to Corbyn - but that they too would be put off by him being ‘hard left.’ But that didn’t happen. One of the things that Corbyn did do, was make progress with those in their 30s and 40s - groups which the Tories would have thought pre-election they’d be the ones winning over.
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
She sacked Justine Greening and as far as I know she is still PM
The three people who know who Justine Greening is would point out the Prime Minister offered her DWP which is not clearly a demotion. And according to the last thread it is Nick Timothy who is now Prime Minister.
You said TM cannot sack anyone and she did
Greening resigned.
She had no choice
Greening did not resign. She did not have a cabinet post to resign from. She had ceased to be education secretary, the moment May told her that the post was no longer hers and had not been appointed to another post. Therefore she did not resign. She declined to accept another job in the cabinet -which is quite different.
May wanted her in another role, she refused.
Doesn't sound like sacking
Declining a sideways move which was effectively a hospital pass... resignation, or sacking ? Does it really matter ?
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Not entirely convinced by the ‘Corbyn frightens people’ narrative. I think it’s fairly obvious the opposition to Corbyn is ideological. People are not voting on competence, they voting on values. If immigration is a high priority, you don’t like diversity, multiculturalism etc it doesn’t matter how ‘competent’ Labour are, ultimately you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a high priority, you like/are at ease with diversity, multiculturalism and have a range of socially liberal positions you’re likely to vote Labour.
The country is split down the middle, the GE told us that, the polls after it have told us that, this poll isn’t a surprise. Even under a leader right wingers didn’t dislike as much, the polling would be much the same. Labour are not going to transform themselves into a Blue Labour style, ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a significant part of Labour’s coalition would walk away from them and whether they’d gain enough WWC social conservatives to balance it out remains to be seen.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
More interesting, what is Labour going to do in 2020 when it realises that if things stay the same, it will lose a fourth election in a row....?
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
Statistically significant?
Theresa May had a 39% lead on this metric in April 2017.
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
I wouldn't put it quite like that (and it is a 5 point lead according to that), nor will it necessarily save the Tories later (not least since it fell from far better figuers), but I do think it noteworthy that these sort of figures should temper some of the hubris that occasionally rears its head from more excitable anti-Tories about how unpopular May and the Tories are. We definitely saw plenty of hubris from the Tories pre-GE, but if we accept these figures (though who can say these days) the Tories are about as popular and trusted as their opponents, and in some areas more trusted still.
Can that be sustained or even improved further? Eh, maybe, but while its not much to be happy about, it at least provides hope.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
How is a judicial review "the rule of the mob"?
Because it appears to be motivated by the desire for good headlines
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
Statistically significant?
Theresa May had a 39% lead on this metric in April 2017.
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
Statistically significant?
Theresa May had a 39% lead on this metric in April 2017.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
And my second paragraph - comments !!!
I know not of what you talk of.
Could you provide a link?
The sale of new build properties by developers with punitive leasehold to first time buyers who in some cases solicitors were commissioned by the developer and allowed the buyers to be trapped in these abhorrent deals
'Leasehold houses and the ground rent scandal'. The Guardian 25th July 2017 article and many more.
Good away point at Chelsea, with Watford drawing, Everton and Burnley losing. A good day for Citeh.
Saw Darkest Hour earlier. The Tube scene was certainly a rather lumpy dramatic device, but Gary Oldman was very good. The odds for best Actor Oscar look too short to me at 1.2 BF. I didnt see the film as Brexit propaganda, indeed most of the plot was about how the Tory party heirarchy were trying to orchestrate the fall of Churchill, forced on them by Attlee's Labour so they could make peace with the Nazis. Not sure how historically accurate other aspects were, but it is a good, albeit rather predictable film, and makes Britain's resistance to be a one man band.
Kade Smith to win The Voice. 14/1 with Ladbrokes seems best to me. Completely unrelated to him being a Leicester lad, and someone we know
Not entirely you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a significant part of Labour’s coalition would walk away from them and whether they’d gain enough WWC social conservatives to balance it out remains to be seen.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Both lost, but Corbyn performed better than Ed Miliband. If him being hard left was such an issue, that would have not happened. Prior to the GE, it was not thought that Remainers would flock to Corbyn - but that they too would be put off by him being ‘hard left.’ But that didn’t happen. One of the things that Corbyn did do, was make progress with those in their 30s and 40s - groups which the Tories would have thought pre-election they’d be the ones winning over.
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
Not entirely convinced by the ‘Corbyn frightens people’ narrative. I think it’s fairly obvious the opposition to Corbyn is ideological. People are not voting on competence, they voting on values. If immigration is a high priority, you don’t like diversity, multiculturalism etc it doesn’t matter how ‘competent’ Labour are, ultimately you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a high priority, you like/are at ease with diversity, multiculturalism and have a range of socially liberal positions you’re likely to vote Labour.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
More interesting, what is Labour going to do in 2020 when it realises that if things stay the same, it will lose a fourth election in a row....?
I think with the way things are going, one of things I wouldn’t bet on is things ‘staying the same.’ These last few years have been so unpredictable.
Not entirely you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a significant part of Labour’s coalition would walk away from them and whether they’d gain enough WWC social conservatives to balance it out remains to be seen.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Both lost, but Corbyn performed better than Ed Miliband. If him being hard left was such an issue, that would have not happened. Prior to the GE, it was not thought that Remainers would flock to Corbyn - but that they too would be put off by him being ‘hard left.’ But that didn’t happen. One of the things that Corbyn did do, was make progress with those in their 30s and 40s - groups which the Tories would have thought pre-election they’d be the ones winning over.
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did.
Yeah, and May lost seats. That’s one of the reasons why the political mood (alongside the expectations going into the campaign) is so different.
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
Statistically significant?
Theresa May had a 39% lead on this metric in April 2017.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
How is a judicial review "the rule of the mob"?
Because it appears to be motivated by the desire for good headlines
Motivation is not as relevant as action. He's taking legal advice in pursuit of good headlines, there's little harm in that, certainly less than promising action (which the report does not say he is) or, should that advice say otherwise, doing something stupid anyway to placate the mob.
A politician of any stripe making a pronouncement on a possible legal challenge pending the outcome of legal advice is not even close to mob rule, even if they only want to do it to be popular.
A highly rushed statement promising that the law will be altered, or that the decision overturned even with no legal basis because that is what is right, that might be more worthy of the comparison.
Can you imagine a mob being placated by it? " Good people, I am disgusted by recent events. And so, I swear to you...that I am taking legal advice on the possibility of challenging them, but should that look unlikely then I won't make a challenge".
Not entirely convinced by the ‘Corbyn frightens people’ narrative. I think it’s fairly obvious the opposition to Corbyn is ideological. People are not voting on competence, they voting on values. If immigration is a high priority, you don’t like diversity, multiculturalism etc it doesn’t matter how ‘competent’ Labour are, ultimately you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a high priority, you like/are at ease with diversity, multiculturalism and have a range of socially liberal positions you’re likely to vote Labour.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
More interesting, what is Labour going to do in 2020 when it realises that if things stay the same, it will lose a fourth election in a row....?
I think with the way things are going, one of things I wouldn’t bet on is things ‘staying the same.’ These last few years have been so unpredictable.
Very sage comment - no one has a clue for the future as nothing has any certainty today or is likely to have in the near future
Very much enjoyed Darkest Hour and Gary Oldman's performance was superb. It is often easy to forget how isolated Churchill was when he became PM. I even thought the District Line scene, though Corbyn, was a good encapsulation of the people versus the establishment. No comparison to today then of course
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
And my second paragraph - comments !!!
I know not of what you talk of.
Could you provide a link?
The sale of new build properties by developers with punitive leasehold to first time buyers who in some cases solicitors were commissioned by the developer and allowed the buyers to be trapped in these abhorrent deals
'Leasehold houses and the ground rent scandal'. The Guardian 25th July 2017 article and many more.
I am surprised you did not know about it
They are getting compensated, an error is being corrected.
Not entirely you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a signi Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Both lost, but Corbyn performed better than Ed Miliband. If him being hard left was such an issue, that would have not happened. Prior to the GE, it was not thought that Remainers would flock to Corbyn - but that they too would be put off by him being ‘hard left.’ But that didn’t happen. One of the things that Corbyn did do, was make progress with those in their 30s and 40s - groups which the Tories would have thought pre-election they’d be the ones winning over.
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did.
Yeah, and May lost seats. That’s one of the reasons why the political mood (alongside the expectations going into the campaign) is so different.
The Brexit hysteria will reach a crescendo as we approach the exit date and the ultra-remainers see their dream finally dying.
The vast majority of the UK will just go about their lives post-exit and the fringe elements will be left ranting on the sidelines like swivel-eyed loons.
But there wont be freedom of movement in the compromise settlement. We wont be in the Single Market. We wont be subject to EU laws. The wishes of the extremists might be ignored, but the wishes of the People must never be ignored.
We haven't seen the Deal yet, it may include all those things. May is the Lord Halifax of the Brexit Darkest Hour.
No May is Chamberlain, perhaps Hammond or a returned Osborne is Halifax, is Boris then Churchill?
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
Not entirely you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a signi Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Both lost, but Corbyn performed better than Ed Miliband. If him being hard left was such an issue, that would have not happened. Prior to the GE, it was not thought that Remainers would flock to Corbyn - but that they too would be put off by him being ‘hard left.’ But that didn’t happen. One of the things that Corbyn did do, was make progress with those in their 30s and 40s - groups which the Tories would have thought pre-election they’d be the ones winning over.
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did.
Yeah, and May lost seats. That’s one of the reasons why the political mood (alongside the expectations going into the campaign) is so different.
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
And my second paragraph - comments !!!
I know not of what you talk of.
Could you provide a link?
The sale of new build properties by developers with punitive leasehold to first time buyers who in some cases solicitors were commissioned by the developer and allowed the buyers to be trapped in these abhorrent deals
'Leasehold houses and the ground rent scandal'. The Guardian 25th July 2017 article and many more.
I am surprised you did not know about it
They are getting compensated, an error is being corrected.
Not entirely you’re likely to vote Conservative. If immigration isn’t a ‘tough on immigration’, small c social conservative party. Not least because many of the social liberal voters who now are a significant part of Labour’s coalition would walk away from them and whether they’d gain enough WWC social conservatives to balance it out remains to be seen.
Both parties have reached their ceiling. I don’t see Labour converting old pensioners to their cause. But then so I don’t see the Tories converting middle aged and younger voters in their cause either. Which I guess is the significance of Project Brexit not gaining any more Brexiteers.
People dont like Corbyn because he is on the extreme hard left. He belongs in the SWP rather than Labour. Just because one doesnt like Corbyn doesnt mean one is "blue" in any shape or form. Many people would like to see a John Smith or Harold Wilson type Labour leader, neither hard left or Blairite.
Ed Miliband wasn’t ‘extreme left’ and he got an even worse result at a GE than Corbyn did. I used to believe the biggest issue with Corbyn what you say, but the fact that he did better than Miliband changed my mind. The biggest issue for Labour is that there are only so many people who share their vision/values. But then that’s the same issue the Tories face as well.
Corbyn and Miliband lost general elections. Corbyn had the advantage over Miliband in that many remainers flocked to Labour to stop hard Brexit, and he was lucky that Theresa May ran a terrible campaign -unlike Cameron against Miliband. But the fact is that both lost, and Corbyn won only slightly more seats than Gordon Brown in 2010. I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
Corbyn won only four more seats than Brown did.
Yeah, and May lost seats. That’s one of the reasons why the political mood (alongside the expectations going into the campaign) is so different.
Turnout in a lot of Tory areas was relatively poor at the last general election. That may change next time. You may say: how will that affect seats? But it was probably true of Tory areas in marginal seats, not just safe Conservative seats.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
I agree Nick. Everything about this case stinks. Sadly, politicians only care about being tough on crime when it is a high profile case that is in the news.
Who were the Law Officers in 2009 when this first started? Looks like Jack Straw was Lord Chancellor and Baroness Scotland was the AG - so the fault for not demanding a review under the 1988 provisions would seem to rest with her and the officials in the DoJ. Add in to this the decisions made by the DPP (good old Kier Starmer)
Yes, the case stinks - but only one party was in power at the relevant time.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
The Brexit hysteria will reach a crescendo as we approach the exit date and the ultra-remainers see their dream finally dying.
The vast majority of the UK will just go about their lives post-exit and the fringe elements will be left ranting on the sidelines like swivel-eyed loons.
But there wont be freedom of movement in the compromise settlement. We wont be in the Single Market. We wont be subject to EU laws. The wishes of the extremists might be ignored, but the wishes of the People must never be ignored.
We haven't seen the Deal yet, it may include all those things. May is the Lord Halifax of the Brexit Darkest Hour.
No May is Chamberlain, perhaps Hammond or a returned Osborne is Halifax, is Boris then Churchill?
Given that Theresa May is less popular than Typhoid Mary and Jeremy Corbyn is more popular than God, surely there must be something wrong with May having a statistically significant 6% lead as best Prime Minister?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
Statistically significant?
Theresa May had a 39% lead on this metric in April 2017.
And by June 2017?
She had a 9% lead on best PM on election day
Given the shit-storm she has endured since then - and the endless laurels placed upon Corbyn - you might have expected that to have moved somewhat (is my point).
Though David Gauke might be acting ultra vires regarding this.
Which is presumably why it is framed as 'fights to' and 'to try to halt' rather than promising it will work. The MoJ even says he will only move forward if there is a reasonable prospect of success. So can it be acting beyond his powers if all he is doing is taking advice on whether proper legal procedures were followed, and launching legal action if it wasn't?
A legal expert thinks The Lord Chancellor has no standing in this case, which is why he thinks nothing like this has ever happened before.
Legal experts again - Gauke is doing the right thing.
Pity all these so called legal experts who tied in first time buyers to outrageous leasehold tenures. Now that is a scandal and the legal profession should be ashamed. Hope they are taken to the cleaners over it
I must tell you that what we have got is an attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law, and it must not succeed. It must not succeed.
And my second paragraph - comments !!!
I know not of what you talk of.
Could you provide a link?
The sale of new build properties by developers with punitive leasehold to first time buyers who in some cases solicitors were commissioned by the developer and allowed the buyers to be trapped in these abhorrent deals
'Leasehold houses and the ground rent scandal'. The Guardian 25th July 2017 article and many more.
I am surprised you did not know about it
They are getting compensated, an error is being corrected.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
I agree Nick. Everything about this case stinks. Sadly, politicians only care about being tough on crime when it is a high profile case that is in the news.
Who were the Law Officers in 2009 when this first started? Looks like Jack Straw was Lord Chancellor and Baroness Scotland was the AG - so the fault for not demanding a review under the 1988 provisions would seem to rest with her and the officials in the DoJ. Add in to this the decisions made by the DPP (good old Kier Starmer)
Yes, the case stinks - but only one party was in power at the relevant time.
Christ, not this old canard.
Sir Keir was not involved in the decision making process.
And as was noted last week the pressure to release long term prisoners may have been instigated by a Tory Justice Secretary in 2016.
Am I the only PB'er who isn't seeing Darkest Hour today?
Not me. WW2, Churchill, we all know how it goes, so sounds like it'll be a well produced snorefest or only mildly interesting, and obviously Oldman will be great as he always is, so it can wait until its on Netflix or something.
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
I agree Nick. Everything about this case stinks. Sadly, politicians only care about being tough on crime when it is a high profile case that is in the news.
Who were the Law Officers in 2009 when this first started? Looks like Jack Straw was Lord Chancellor and Baroness Scotland was the AG - so the fault for not demanding a review under the 1988 provisions would seem to rest with her and the officials in the DoJ. Add in to this the decisions made by the DPP (good old Kier Starmer)
Yes, the case stinks - but only one party was in power at the relevant time.
Christ, not this old canard.
Sir Keir was not involved in the decision making process.
And as was noted last week the pressure to release long term prisoners may have been instigated by a Tory Justice Secretary in 2016.
Indeed Starmer was not DPP at the time of the case, he was yet to take office.
Am I the only PB'er who isn't seeing Darkest Hour today?
Not me. WW2, Churchill, we all know how it goes, so sounds like it'll be a well produced snorefest or only mildly interesting, and obviously Oldman will be great as he always is, so it can wait until its on Netflix or something.
I watched The Last Jedi three times within 24 hours of release.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
The Brexit hysteria will reach a crescendo as we approach the exit date and the ultra-remainers see their dream finally dying.
The vast majority of the UK will just go about their lives post-exit and the fringe elements will be left ranting on the sidelines like swivel-eyed loons.
But there wont be freedom of movement in the compromise settlement. We wont be in the Single Market. We wont be subject to EU laws. The wishes of the extremists might be ignored, but the wishes of the People must never be ignored.
We haven't seen the Deal yet, it may include all those things. May is the Lord Halifax of the Brexit Darkest Hour.
No May is Chamberlain, perhaps Hammond or a returned Osborne is Halifax, is Boris then Churchill?
Boris likes to belive that he is Churchill.
Well he wrote his biography and clearly models himself on him
Am I the only one who feels a bit of non-political unease over the way this is being handled? If his sentence was too low, the prosecution could have appealed it. If he's provably committed other crimes that would have made a difference, they should have prosecuted originally. But this rush to second-guess the Parole Board and dig up new prosecutions at the 11th hour seems more a response to public outrage than a judicious approach.
I agree Nick. Everything about this case stinks. Sadly, politicians only care about being tough on crime when it is a high profile case that is in the news.
Who were the Law Officers in 2009 when this first started? Looks like Jack Straw was Lord Chancellor and Baroness Scotland was the AG - so the fault for not demanding a review under the 1988 provisions would seem to rest with her and the officials in the DoJ. Add in to this the decisions made by the DPP (good old Kier Starmer)
Yes, the case stinks - but only one party was in power at the relevant time.
Christ, not this old canard.
Sir Keir was not involved in the decision making process.
And as was noted last week the pressure to release long term prisoners may have been instigated by a Tory Justice Secretary in 2016.
You have to wonder what the DPP (either Starmer or his predecessor) does all day if they don't get involved in cases such as the Worboys one.
The Brexit hysteria will reach a crescendo as we approach the exit date and the ultra-remainers see their dream finally dying.
The vast majority of the UK will just go about their lives post-exit and the fringe elements will be left ranting on the sidelines like swivel-eyed loons.
But there wont be freedom of movement in the compromise settlement. We wont be in the Single Market. We wont be subject to EU laws. The wishes of the extremists might be ignored, but the wishes of the People must never be ignored.
We haven't seen the Deal yet, it may include all those things. May is the Lord Halifax of the Brexit Darkest Hour.
No May is Chamberlain, perhaps Hammond or a returned Osborne is Halifax, is Boris then Churchill?
Boris likes to belive that he is Churchill.
Well he wrote his biography and clearly models himself on him
Indeed Starmer was not DPP at the time of the case, he was yet to take office.
Stop bringing facts into this debate.
Starmer became DPP during the case. It is not clear who was DPP at the time the decision was taken to not prosecute three further cases because they couldn't be bothered.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
And when that extra £30 billion runs out, what then?
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
You have to wonder what the DPP (either Starmer or his predecessor) does all day if they don't get involved in cases such as the Worboys one.
They set the strategic vision and tactics, they don't involved in every operational decision.
He's a human rights lawyer, so not an expert in sexual offences/crimes.
If you want to criticise Sir Keir, you're on much safer ground for the CPS decision not to prosecute Simon Harwood.
I'd have thought the decision not to prosecute on the basis that the accused will be going down for a long time anyway, would need sign off from the head of the CPS.
And claiming he's not an expert doesn't wash. Sounds to me like he wasn't qualified for the job.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
And when that extra £30 billion runs out, what then?
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
We might want to think about trying another way.
And that is very true and why it needs cross party agreement. There are those in each party who would agree and if Corbyn objected he would be sidelined
You have to wonder what the DPP (either Starmer or his predecessor) does all day if they don't get involved in cases such as the Worboys one.
They set the strategic vision and tactics, they don't involved in every operational decision.
He's a human rights lawyer, so not an expert in sexual offences/crimes.
If you want to criticise Sir Keir, you're on much safer ground for the CPS decision not to prosecute Simon Harwood.
I'd have thought the decision not to prosecute on the basis that the accused will be going down for a long time anyway, would need sign off from the head of the CPS.
And claiming he's not an expert doesn't wash. Sounds to me like he wasn't qualified for the job.
You'd be wrong, prosecutors are given a lot of leeway.
Being a lawyer is a lot like being a footballer.
You have some skills in a particular area, but that doesn't mean you'd be suited to play in every position.
Lionel Messi is one of the truly great footballers of all time, but he'd make a shite left back, but you judge him solely as a forward.
The Brexit hysteria will reach a crescendo as we approach the exit date and the ultra-remainers see their dream finally dying.
The vast majority of the UK will just go about their lives post-exit and the fringe elements will be left ranting on the sidelines like swivel-eyed loons.
But there wont be freedom of movement in the compromise settlement. We wont be in the Single Market. We wont be subject to EU laws. The wishes of the extremists might be ignored, but the wishes of the People must never be ignored.
We haven't seen the Deal yet, it may include all those things. May is the Lord Halifax of the Brexit Darkest Hour.
No May is Chamberlain, perhaps Hammond or a returned Osborne is Halifax, is Boris then Churchill?
Boris likes to belive that he is Churchill.
Well he wrote his biography and clearly models himself on him
One issue with the Worboys case is what conditions have been placed on him and how these are to be monitored eg how is he going to be stopped from approaching his victims or from working as a cab driver eg for Uber.
How can the Parole Board be certain that he is not a danger to women? Etc etc.
Reviewing their decision is sensible to make sure they have properly taken all relevant factors into account.
But I would be concerned if he were allowed to live near his victims, for instance, or if he were allowed to work in an occupation where he could take advantage of women in the way he did before. One hopes the Parole Board has properly thought this through. Because if they haven’t and he offends again........
You have to wonder what the DPP (either Starmer or his predecessor) does all day if they don't get involved in cases such as the Worboys one.
They set the strategic vision and tactics, they don't involved in every operational decision.
He's a human rights lawyer, so not an expert in sexual offences/crimes.
If you want to criticise Sir Keir, you're on much safer ground for the CPS decision not to prosecute Simon Harwood.
I'd have thought the decision not to prosecute on the basis that the accused will be going down for a long time anyway, would need sign off from the head of the CPS.
And claiming he's not an expert doesn't wash. Sounds to me like he wasn't qualified for the job.
You'd be wrong, prosecutors are given a lot of leeway.
Being a lawyer is a lot like being a footballer.
You have some skills in a particular area, but that doesn't mean you'd be suited to play in every position.
Lionel Messi is one of the truly great footballers of all time, but he'd make a shite left back, but you judge him solely as a forward.
The government are damned if they do and damned if they don't on Brexit. Most people don't want to revisit it through a new referendum, but they don't seem to think Brexit is really worth the cost, the time and distraction either. They just want to get it out the way. It is only beginning to dawn on people that Brexit is a state that you are in, not a transition where you do a few deals and it's sorted. It will go on forever. Meanwhile the degraded NHS is getting cut through. None of this is good news for the government.
Some vox pops with a mostly Leaver crowd. The government will get the blame from Leavers groups 2 (Frustrated and Anxious) and 3 (Regretful), as well as Remainers of course: https://www.demos.co.uk/project/citizens-voices/
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
And when that extra £30 billion runs out, what then?
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
We might want to think about trying another way.
Which is why I put more efficiencies first but of course as new income tax and national insurance revenues come in every year they never run out even if there is a finite limit to their size
You have to wonder what the DPP (either Starmer or his predecessor) does all day if they don't get involved in cases such as the Worboys one.
They set the strategic vision and tactics, they don't involved in every operational decision.
He's a human rights lawyer, so not an expert in sexual offences/crimes.
If you want to criticise Sir Keir, you're on much safer ground for the CPS decision not to prosecute Simon Harwood.
I'd have thought the decision not to prosecute on the basis that the accused will be going down for a long time anyway, would need sign off from the head of the CPS.
And claiming he's not an expert doesn't wash. Sounds to me like he wasn't qualified for the job.
You'd be wrong, prosecutors are given a lot of leeway.
Being a lawyer is a lot like being a footballer.
You have some skills in a particular area, but that doesn't mean you'd be suited to play in every position.
Lionel Messi is one of the truly great footballers of all time, but he'd make a shite left back, but you judge him solely as a forward.
You'd have been better using rugby as an analogy. I reckon most (probably not the best) clubs would happily have Messi if they had to play him at left back.
A better football analogy to my mind would be that great players don't necessarily make great managers. Perhaps if Starmer was such a specialist, he shouldn't have been given a managerial job.
And I see he did get involved with the Harwood case.
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
And when that extra £30 billion runs out, what then?
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
We might want to think about trying another way.
' Expenditure on the NHS has risen rapidly and consistently since it was established on 5th July 1948. In the first full year of its operation, the Government spent £11.4bn on health in the UK. In 2010/11, the figure was over ten times that amount: £121bn. Growth in health expenditure has far outpaced the rise in both GDP and total public expenditure: each increased by a factor of around 4.8 over this period. '
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Has the increase in NHS expenditure mostly been used to keep sick oldies lingering on for a few months longer ?
Goodness. Here we are at the beginning of 2018, and despite all the government woes, Corbyn Labour can only achieve a dead tie in the Observer Opinium poll. Even Kinnock and Miliband were ahead in double figures. All it will take is a new younger Tory PM in the last year of this parliament, a better Tory campaign, a more attractive Tory manifesto, and only the slightest swing to the government will mean thatLabour will lose a fourth election in a row for only the second time in its history.
Kinnock did not have a double figure lead a mere 7 months after the 1983 and 1987 elections!
The final Brexit deal could turn out to be surprisingly good, and ceases to be a driving force in marginal seats by GE2022.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
Agree, particularly on the NHS. Brexit could become an issue when Leave voters don't accept the consequences of their choice: that it will be time-consuming and distracting and that it will have costs that mean less money for things like the NHS. So the government gets blamed for not dealing with what voters think is important and for not funding services like the NHS properly.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
And when that extra £30 billion runs out, what then?
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
We might want to think about trying another way.
' Expenditure on the NHS has risen rapidly and consistently since it was established on 5th July 1948. In the first full year of its operation, the Government spent £11.4bn on health in the UK. In 2010/11, the figure was over ten times that amount: £121bn. Growth in health expenditure has far outpaced the rise in both GDP and total public expenditure: each increased by a factor of around 4.8 over this period. '
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Has the increase in NHS expenditure mostly been used to keep sick oldies lingering on for a few months longer ?
Health spending in all wealthy countries has risen massively since the 1940s.
The NHS is actually very cost efficient - but if we didn’t have it - we would still be spending money on healthcare - probably more.
The funding of the NHS will come into focus this spring when Hunt brings forward the green paper.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Ultimately more efficiencies and more revenue, whether income tax or national insurance
And when that extra £30 billion runs out, what then?
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
We might want to think about trying another way.
' Expenditure on the NHS has risen rapidly and consistently since it was established on 5th July 1948. In the first full year of its operation, the Government spent £11.4bn on health in the UK. In 2010/11, the figure was over ten times that amount: £121bn. Growth in health expenditure has far outpaced the rise in both GDP and total public expenditure: each increased by a factor of around 4.8 over this period. '
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Has the increase in NHS expenditure mostly been used to keep sick oldies lingering on for a few months longer ?
Health spending in all wealthy countries has risen massively since the 1940s.
The NHS is actually very cost efficient - but if we didn’t have it - we would still be spending money on healthcare - probably more.
All you have to do is mention health strategy in some general philosophical terms and you can be sure that someone will start bleating on about how the NHS is the envy of the world.
What every health care system in the world has in common is that they have a vested interest in increased spending on health.
Whereas it might well be that in the more advanced countries we are already well past the point where diminshing returns make this extra spending not worthwhile.
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Not really. Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks. People didn't stop smoking by themselves but via public health programs that took decades to reach fruition. Epidemiology and disease tracking monitor disease outbreak and tries to make resources available to meet them. Diptheria and polio are strangers, not companions. Iron lungs are in museums. HIV is a manageable condition, not a death sentence. We are so healthy that diseases such as diabetes or senility or even cancer concern us, where in previous years you would simply have died of something else first. Our life expectancy is in the seventies. We forget how profoundly life has changed since WWII due to medicine and surgery.
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Not really. Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks. People didn't stop smoking by themselves but via public health programs that took decades to reach fruition. Epidemiology and disease tracking monitor disease outbreak and tries to make resources available to meet them. Diptheria and polio are strangers, not companions. Iron lungs are in museums. HIV is a manageable condition, not a death sentence. We are so healthy that diseases such as diabetes or senility or even cancer concern us, where in previous years you would simply have died of something else first. Our life expectancy is in the seventies. We forget how profoundly life has changed since WWII due to medicine and surgery.
You make Britain before the Second World War sound like a terrible place to live for most people, rather than one of the best places in the world to live at that time for the average person, which it undoubtedly was.
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Not really. Just before the start of WWII, life expectancy was in the 40's, infant mortality was nontrivial, the disabled were bedbound, housebound or dead. The immunisation programs of the 50's hugely reduced child mortality, better antenatal and postnatal care stopped infant mortality in its tracks. People didn't stop smoking by themselves but via public health programs that took decades to reach fruition. Epidemiology and disease tracking monitor disease outbreak and tries to make resources available to meet them. Diptheria and polio are strangers, not companions. Iron lungs are in museums. HIV is a manageable condition, not a death sentence. We are so healthy that diseases such as diabetes or senility or even cancer concern us, where in previous years you would simply have died of something else first. Our life expectancy is in the seventies. We forget how profoundly life has changed since WWII due to medicine and surgery.
You make Britain before the Second World War sound like a terrible place to live for most people, rather than one of the best places in the world to live at that time for the average person, which it undoubtedly was.
Aren't both of those things true: it was a terrible place compared to 2017 Britain, but an amazing place compared to 1937 Burma.
Mr. 1000, reminds me a bit of some modern day people deriding the Middle Ages as a time of dirt and poor health, as if it was somehow optional and the silly peasants simply refused to use vacuum cleaners and antibiotics.
Comments
Certainly none of their own pronouncements on the subject can be trusted, such things are one area I think it entirely fair to say politicians will lie through their teeth about, so whatever either side claims can be discounted.
It was said the the charging/evidential test for the other crimes weren't met in most of the other cases.
The presumption of many was that he'd be staying in prison for a lot longer.
I think the greatest risks to this Government are the NHS and Housing.
But, I don't think there's harm in reviewing the evidence behind the Parole Board's decision, dispassionately, to double-check the right decision has been made.
To fabricate him remaining in jail for political, and not judicial, reasons would be the wrong thing to do.
I wonder what Labour is going to do in 2022 when it loses a fourth election to a new post Brexit prime minister..................
Doesn't sound like sacking
However it was a 2012 ECHR judgment that indeterminate sentences were arbitrary and unlawful, and Chris Grayling implemented the ECHR ruling.
Could you provide a link?
Difference between Corbyn and Brown - Corbyn won seats, Brown lost them and May lost seats, Cameron won seats.
Does it really matter ?
Oh dear, Jeremy Corbyn.....
And that seems deeply unlikely - certainly before we leave.
Theresa May had a 39% lead on this metric in April 2017.
Can that be sustained or even improved further? Eh, maybe, but while its not much to be happy about, it at least provides hope.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/952293455341981696
'Leasehold houses and the ground rent scandal'. The Guardian 25th July 2017 article and many more.
I am surprised you did not know about it
Good away point at Chelsea, with Watford drawing, Everton and Burnley losing. A good day for Citeh.
Saw Darkest Hour earlier. The Tube scene was certainly a rather lumpy dramatic device, but Gary Oldman was very good. The odds for best Actor Oscar look too short to me at 1.2 BF. I didnt see the film as Brexit propaganda, indeed most of the plot was about how the Tory party heirarchy were trying to orchestrate the fall of Churchill, forced on them by Attlee's Labour so they could make peace with the Nazis. Not sure how historically accurate other aspects were, but it is a good, albeit rather predictable film, and makes Britain's resistance to be a one man band.
Kade Smith to win The Voice. 14/1 with Ladbrokes seems best to me. Completely unrelated to him being a Leicester lad, and someone we know
A politician of any stripe making a pronouncement on a possible legal challenge pending the outcome of legal advice is not even close to mob rule, even if they only want to do it to be popular.
A highly rushed statement promising that the law will be altered, or that the decision overturned even with no legal basis because that is what is right, that might be more worthy of the comparison.
Can you imagine a mob being placated by it? " Good people, I am disgusted by recent events. And so, I swear to you...that I am taking legal advice on the possibility of challenging them, but should that look unlikely then I won't make a challenge".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/27/taylor-wimpey-ground-rent-scandal
Yes, the case stinks - but only one party was in power at the relevant time.
30 billion plus per year has to be found and no one has any proposals on how to fund this enormous problem. That is when a cross party committe needs to deal with it headed by Hunt
Sir Keir was not involved in the decision making process.
And as was noted last week the pressure to release long term prisoners may have been instigated by a Tory Justice Secretary in 2016.
He's a human rights lawyer, so not an expert in sexual offences/crimes.
If you want to criticise Sir Keir, you're on much safer ground for the CPS decision not to prosecute Simon Harwood.
We can’t spend our entire national income on the NHS nor tax people at 100%. So we might be better off working out what we want, what we can afford and what we will have to do without.
For all my life it has felt as if getting more money for the NHS, enough money, is like chasing the end of a rainbow.
We might want to think about trying another way.
And claiming he's not an expert doesn't wash. Sounds to me like he wasn't qualified for the job.
Being a lawyer is a lot like being a footballer.
You have some skills in a particular area, but that doesn't mean you'd be suited to play in every position.
Lionel Messi is one of the truly great footballers of all time, but he'd make a shite left back, but you judge him solely as a forward.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579965/Police-probe-Boris-Johnson-over-cigar-theft.html
How can the Parole Board be certain that he is not a danger to women? Etc etc.
Reviewing their decision is sensible to make sure they have properly taken all relevant factors into account.
But I would be concerned if he were allowed to live near his victims, for instance, or if he were allowed to work in an occupation where he could take advantage of women in the way he did before. One hopes the Parole Board has properly thought this through. Because if they haven’t and he offends again........
A better football analogy to my mind would be that great players don't necessarily make great managers. Perhaps if Starmer was such a specialist, he shouldn't have been given a managerial job.
And I see he did get involved with the Harwood case.
July 1948. In the first full year of its operation, the Government spent £11.4bn on health in
the UK. In 2010/11, the figure was over ten times that amount: £121bn. Growth in health
expenditure has far outpaced the rise in both GDP and total public expenditure: each
increased by a factor of around 4.8 over this period. '
I do wonder what we've really gained from all that extra expenditure.
Improvements in health and longevity during the last 70 years have more to do with lifestyle and work changes eg a massive reduction in smoking and millions fewer working in health destroying jobs.
Has the increase in NHS expenditure mostly been used to keep sick oldies lingering on for a few months longer ?
If the extra money which Messi costs doesn't bring a return in football or commercial or pretige terms then he might be being overpaid.
I imagine that Barcelona are happy with the return he has provided though.
If so I’d be ok with the government buying them out for, say, 30 pence in the pound
The NHS is actually very cost efficient - but if we didn’t have it - we would still be spending money on healthcare - probably more.
What every health care system in the world has in common is that they have a vested interest in increased spending on health.
Whereas it might well be that in the more advanced countries we are already well past the point where diminshing returns make this extra spending not worthwhile.
Nicola Sturgeon & Lord Adonis want you to!
Surefire winner!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15826834.__39_Scotland_is_the_powerbroker_when_it_comes_to_Brexit__39__Labour_grandee_says_Scottish_government_is_key_to_forcing_second_EU_referendum/#comments-anchor
Mildly pestilent, hence being up earlier. Remains to be seen whether, if it persists, that'll mean I post more or less than usual.