Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Vanden Saab said:
Do you think Labour will leave the ECHR or just ignore its ruling? I look forward to your reaction when a lawyer in his pyjamas somewhere in the EU puts the legislation on hold. It is shocking that the former DPP is even suggesting it. Just what we have come to expect from the Starnak party though.
Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.
This is what happens when you listen to a silly goose like Richard Tice, you silly goose.Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.
The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076
tangerine_sedge said:
In normal times I'd handwave such stories away as scaremongering, but I think the only people they are trying to convince is themselves. It's pure copium to fool themselves that a vote for reform or the Tory party is not madness.
Madness? Fool? With that bizarre statement both concepts are neatly illustrated. A free vote for a person's Party of preference is democracy not madness nor is it foolish.People with varied viewpoints voting other than for your preferred Party? Never mind.
Vanden Saab said:
It seems to be a pretty firm view in lawyering circles...
https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/10/03/abolishin...
Here is an alternative view https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732361838592115https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2019/10/03/abolishin...
And one from a human rights lawyer https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/news/2019/items/the-cha...
The Pannick opinion makes a big jump from closures and assumes that VAT is essentially the same.
President Merkin said:
Vanden Saab said:
Do you think Labour will leave the ECHR or just ignore its ruling? I look forward to your reaction when a lawyer in his pyjamas somewhere in the EU puts the legislation on hold. It is shocking that the former DPP is even suggesting it. Just what we have come to expect from the Starnak party though.
Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.
This is what happens when you listen to a silly goose like Richard Tice, you silly goose.Of course he must know his plan is probably illegal being a top lawyer and all so the question then is why suggest it. It seems especially stupid as if it is ruled against it will bring a whole group of people to the leave the ECHR cause.
The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.
It's actually pathetic.
It’s actually hilarious!k about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.It's actually pathetic.
JagLover said:
Telegraph has a rather hysterical article about Labour moving public money away from middle-class areas once in power.
Based on a line in the manifesto "they will enact the socia-economic duty in the equalities act 2010".
If true to any extent I suspect hopes of better public services in exchange for more tax might prove to be incorrect in the leafy suburbs, though I am sure we will see the latter.
It all depends, devil in the detail as usual. There are already funds , grants and support available which are targeted at individuals from socio- economically deprived areas.Based on a line in the manifesto "they will enact the socia-economic duty in the equalities act 2010".
If true to any extent I suspect hopes of better public services in exchange for more tax might prove to be incorrect in the leafy suburbs, though I am sure we will see the latter.
An example, already application support in higher education is definitely skewed towards applicants from such areas. However this is where the devil is in the detail.
It depends on the definition and granularity of such areas. We've all seen in cities streets where very nice houses are going for well in excess of 1 million, and not talking stupid London prices btw, whilst a couple of minutes walk away you get run down housing with front gardens occupied by sofas and cars being dismantled for scrap. Or nice housing estates on the edge of green belt with a few caravan sites occupied by you know who down the road. All in the same designated socio-economic area.
Problem is who applies for the grants and bursaries for the higher education? It's not the kids from the run down places or the caravan camps, it's the ones from the other areas, mothers returning to work after raising a family, career changers. That's not to say that someone who lives in a nice house who wants to return to work and get into nursing or teaching, say, shouldn't be supported as going to be of benefit to society because clearly they should.
So the question is, as with so many of ideas possibly touted by politicians, what are you actually going to do to back up your pledges, and how will you implement it in detail? Means testing? Again there's already a lot of that in place.
Or is it empty the bins less frequently based on something, because the bet is that it won't be services improved but more like downgraded. Labour, levelling down. If the premise stated by the DT is true, even remotely so.
Edited to correct quote formatting only.
Edited by FiF on Saturday 29th June 09:29
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Must say it's weird seeing the people who quite literally didn't give a fk about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.
It's actually pathetic.
It's actually just observation, what's good for the goose etc..... but you spin it any way you wish (no change there!) k about the Johnson Government acting unlawfully when it suited them going full on "but Labour might have the ECHR on them" about VAT on school fees.It's actually pathetic.
Vanden Saab said:
Excellent, so as with the example he gives of prisoners being denied the right to vote Labour are going to ignore the ECHR and do it anyway. You are obviously happy for them to break international law etc. Hilarious
Quite why you are going out of your way to publicly display a cognitive deficiency is a mystery. Perhaps you really cannot process information in which case I can forgive. The alternative though is you are so far down the your own far rght rabbit hole that you just can't brook someone who knows what they're talking about. if it contradicts your core beliefs. That's the handicap of ideology & you appear to be a perpetual victim of it. I almost pity that state. But not enough. It's the politics of fantasists.President Merkin said:
This is what happens when you listen to a silly goose like Richard Tice, you silly goose.
The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076
From its creation to the end of 2023, the ECHR made over 300 judgments with at least one violation of an ECHR right against the UK. The position post-brexit has been much better, i,e, interference has been at a lower level, and whlle the UK will follow the Supreme Court, the EHCR can still have an impact. EHCR rule 39 orders aka interim measures aka urgent incjunctions are a case in point. Just such an emission led to prevention of the first deportation flight to Rwanda back in 2022. This delayed implementation until the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill received Royal Assent in April this year, Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.The ECHR cannot override acts of Parliament. If you were sensible enough to leave the cohort who've had enough of experts, you would know that. Stil, it's never too late to repent, so here's one for you. No charge.
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1806732396299223076
The quality of judges and the method of their appointment has been a matter of concern in the UK prior to brexit and in other Council of Europe Member States. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe based on three nominations from each Member State. Both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe identified numerous weaknesses in this method. Moving with the customary speed of light these deficiencies haven't been fullly rectified with the reform process ongoing, Some are 'underway'.
Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
hidetheelephants said:
isaldiri said:
Lord Pannick who is a noted and very highly regarded lawyer that has dealt with a lot of human rights cases is pointing out a potential problem with ECHR law. Being shocked or not is entirely up to you.
A lawyer is arguing that his case is right and the opposite case isn't. It's how law works.Wombat3 said:
Puzzles said:
General Price said:
I see they are going to come after private pensions again.
What have you heard/read on this?(Cos that won't affect the "working man", only the filthy rich!
)I can’t keep up
turbobloke said:
Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.
Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
Picking the two diamonds out of that steamer, the first is merely a flowery repetition of Sunak's foreign court line & equally dishonest, but no surprises there. The second is your tic making its daily return, another tour of Turbo's greatest hits, including Brexit, Rayner, captain flip flop & the single market. Do you need a reboot?Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
President Merkin said:
turbobloke said:
Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.
Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
Picking the two diamonds out of that steamer, the first is merely a flowery repetition of Sunak's foreign court line & equally dishonest, but no surprises there. The second is your tic making its daily return, another tour of Turbo's greatest hits, including Brexit, Rayner, captain flip flop & the single market. Do you need a reboot?Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
More from Lord Ashcroft on Starmer not winning hearts and minds (that's a phrase from The Guardian not Lord A), and the influence of polls in terms of a type of positive feedback.
Lord Ashcroft polling said:
Most people think they know what will happen. Keir Starmer not becoming prime minister on Friday morning would make the shocks of 2016 (Brexit, Trump, Leicester City winning the Premier League) look tame.
Less clear is the scale of the likely Conservative defeat. More than half of voters now expect a large Labour majority, according to my latest polling – up from just over a third in the days after Rishi’s surprise announcement in the Downing Street drizzle. Most of those who expect such a result say this is because of the polls and predictions they see in the news, and it is true that many studies point to varying degrees of Labour landslide. But as a wise man once said, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
A huge Labour victory is certainly one scenario, but there are others. My poll found that only half the country say they have definitely made up their minds how to vote. In my focus groups around the country, the lack of enthusiasm for Keir Starmer and Labour is unmistakeable.
Less clear is the scale of the likely Conservative defeat. More than half of voters now expect a large Labour majority, according to my latest polling – up from just over a third in the days after Rishi’s surprise announcement in the Downing Street drizzle. Most of those who expect such a result say this is because of the polls and predictions they see in the news, and it is true that many studies point to varying degrees of Labour landslide. But as a wise man once said, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
A huge Labour victory is certainly one scenario, but there are others. My poll found that only half the country say they have definitely made up their minds how to vote. In my focus groups around the country, the lack of enthusiasm for Keir Starmer and Labour is unmistakeable.
isaldiri said:
You were the one who decided to have a swipe at Pannick due to his school history implying that he was obviously incorrect on potential application of human rights law despite his background as a pretty bloody highly regarded lawyer that has dealt with quite a lot of high profile human rights cases…..
Given he's taken an interest in defending the public school system since at least 1982, he is not a disinterested party just doing it for the pay and my comment wasn't inaccurate. He's a lawyer offering an opinion and if it gets to court other lawyers will offer theirs.turbobloke said:
President Merkin said:
turbobloke said:
Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.
Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
Picking the two diamonds out of that steamer, the first is merely a flowery repetition of Sunak's foreign court line & equally dishonest, but no surprises there. The second is your tic making its daily return, another tour of Turbo's greatest hits, including Brexit, Rayner, captain flip flop & the single market. Do you need a reboot?Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
More from Lord Ashcroft on Starmer not winning hearts and minds (that's a phrase from The Guardian not Lord A), and the influence of polls in terms of a type of positive feedback.
Lord Ashcroft polling said:
Most people think they know what will happen. Keir Starmer not becoming prime minister on Friday morning would make the shocks of 2016 (Brexit, Trump, Leicester City winning the Premier League) look tame.
Less clear is the scale of the likely Conservative defeat. More than half of voters now expect a large Labour majority, according to my latest polling – up from just over a third in the days after Rishi’s surprise announcement in the Downing Street drizzle. Most of those who expect such a result say this is because of the polls and predictions they see in the news, and it is true that many studies point to varying degrees of Labour landslide. But as a wise man once said, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
A huge Labour victory is certainly one scenario, but there are others. My poll found that only half the country say they have definitely made up their minds how to vote. In my focus groups around the country, the lack of enthusiasm for Keir Starmer and Labour is unmistakeable.
Less clear is the scale of the likely Conservative defeat. More than half of voters now expect a large Labour majority, according to my latest polling – up from just over a third in the days after Rishi’s surprise announcement in the Downing Street drizzle. Most of those who expect such a result say this is because of the polls and predictions they see in the news, and it is true that many studies point to varying degrees of Labour landslide. But as a wise man once said, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
A huge Labour victory is certainly one scenario, but there are others. My poll found that only half the country say they have definitely made up their minds how to vote. In my focus groups around the country, the lack of enthusiasm for Keir Starmer and Labour is unmistakeable.
turbobloke said:
From its creation to the end of 2023, the ECHR made over 300 judgments with at least one violation of an ECHR right against the UK. The position post-brexit has been much better, i,e, interference has been at a lower level, and whlle the UK will follow the Supreme Court, the EHCR can still have an impact. EHCR rule 39 orders aka interim measures aka urgent incjunctions are a case in point. Just such an emission led to prevention of the first deportation flight to Rwanda back in 2022. This delayed implementation until the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill received Royal Assent in April this year, Clearly meddlesome interference is still possibe arising from unelected non-UK supranational bloat.
The quality of judges and the method of their appointment has been a matter of concern in the UK prior to brexit and in other Council of Europe Member States. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe based on three nominations from each Member State. Both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe identified numerous weaknesses in this method. Moving with the customary speed of light these deficiencies haven't been fullly rectified with the reform process ongoing, Some are 'underway'.
Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
Will be interesting to see if the human rights lawyer will implement the rulings of the ECHR. I forgot about votes for prisoners - good to see the British government is ignoring judicial overreach. The quality of judges and the method of their appointment has been a matter of concern in the UK prior to brexit and in other Council of Europe Member States. Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe based on three nominations from each Member State. Both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe identified numerous weaknesses in this method. Moving with the customary speed of light these deficiencies haven't been fullly rectified with the reform process ongoing, Some are 'underway'.
Thank goodness for Brexit. No Party is offering to try rejoining, certainly not Labour and SKS who has also ruled out any SM CU nonsense. However this is Capt FlipFlop so we'll have to wait and see what Rayner wants.
Just a few days out from the GE and yet no sign, no hear for weeks from the Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And where the heck is the Green energy secretary Ed Milliband.
Both Offices of National importance and yet Labour choose to hide them both away for the duration of their electoral campaign. Why would they do that?
Both Offices of National importance and yet Labour choose to hide them both away for the duration of their electoral campaign. Why would they do that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff