That seems a very common radical left belief nowadays.
Backroom legal obsessive. Former law lecturer and government lawyer. https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlgardner/ Also books, beer, films, and a bit of politics. London and Warrington.
2,055 followers 831 following 2,085 posts
view profile on Bluesky
That seems a very common radical left belief nowadays.
I think this’ll be disastrous for the Greens. Yet again we see party members making the worst choice of leader.
I was once talking to a student who was pro Scottish independence. I asked her about Orkney and Shetland, and she admitted she was (as I'd put it to her) a unionist as regards Scotland. I was impressed by her unapologetic frankness about it.
There has been a lot of ink spilled about the substance of the Policy Exchange paper today. I just want to write a brief thread here on a point that I haven't seen mentioned today and what I think is likely to be a key target of the paper: the upcoming Supreme Court appeal in Dillon (UKSC/2025/0013)
I agree. The people I’m talking about tend to mostly want much higher taxes on the rich, as you say, rather than on themselves. To be fair I do think many of them would happily pay more in tax, but I think also tend to overestimate other people’s readiness to do so.
You seriously think the Supreme Court wrote that judgment because Starmer told them to? What a bonkers conspiracy theory.
Full text of last week's Court of Appeal judgment on Essex asylum hotel www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWC...
To a lot of people now, “austerity” just means not increasing spending, borrowing and tax as much as they’d like to.
For the Greens.
I reckon this is a disaster for them. It’ll blow up their voter coalition perhaps permanently and divide their activists (or divide them more), and they’re going to waste a lot of time on the question of relations with “Your Party”.
I wonder how many Dutch and Austrian people would agree with her characterisation of events there. I think the far right has become normalised in both countries, and that it’s now very hard to govern without them. I think she’s always wanted PR so this is just her argument du jour.
Interesting, because some Americans (like Musk) give the impression that there’s a vast gulf between their approach to free speech and ours. I’m not sure it is that vast.
I don't particularly agree with his views, but if he has been arrested over these three tweets then that's completely ridiculous. open.substack.com/pub/grahamli...
Polanski’s win is good news for Ed Davey, isn’t it? I imagine the LibDems are well placed to pick up some of the less “firebrandy” former Green voters in seats that may be good targets for them.
Quite appallingly, the shadow Lord Chancellor and shadow Secretary of State for Justice has posted to X an inaccurate and misleading statement about the Court of Appeal’s judgment, mistakenly quoting and describing paragraph 114 of the judgment it overruled, not the Court of Appeal’s own reasoning
Could I take this opportunity to suggest to all my followers that they follow Barbara? She comes from a different political perspective to me but she is always worth hearing even when (especially when) we disagree.
Yes, fair point.
I’m one of those people, and it’s important to me and for my career to be a barrister. I’m happy to be regulated, and I think there are enough barristers in slightly alternative careers like to make it a good idea.
There’s no sensible alternative now either, and no sign of one being available by 2029. It’s Starmer or chaos.
Good example! Lots of people did that in 2022, I saw it everywhere.
I suppose it depends how much of a habit these things become.
I'm fine with both. I also (unlike apparently a lot of people here) am not bothered if the PM has one in his house.
Okay, but why are e.g. flags in online profiles different? That's as demonstrative or performative as anything else.
Maybe that's changed a bit, and not necessarily because of the far right. Maybe it's just part of the general Americanisation of our culture. I bet some people put their hand on their heart when singing the national anthem nowadays.
Obviously I agree about not being pressured to fly flags. And I'm not into flags as an ideological symbol. I do see your point about England flags. But I do also think that if we start seeing a national flag as a divisive ideological symbol, that will really help those who want it to be one.
The Daily Mail might have said that! There are lots of flags around, on pubs and cafes for example, and on people's profiles here, going without comment all the time. It seems to me displaying flags is pretty normal!
How about the Scottish or Welsh flags? What makes them better, if they are? I think the only rationale that makes any sort of sense is if we've decided we will just give the far right the English and British flags because they want them.
What's the difference? Why would we see one flag as normal and okay for people to display, the other not?
The funny thing about this is that if Tory-minded or just non-leftwing people started pointing out funny bits of behaviour done by relatively few people (hanging up pride flags for example) and saying it's "not normal", I bet more leftwing people would think that was well dodgy.
There’s an oversteering danger in response to this flag thing. The far right will own every symbol of this country and any other symbol they want (Paddington, say!) if the rest of us start assuming any use of those things is abnormal and far right.
You didn’t mention lampposts! You did mention streets and houses. I don’t do it myself but think it’s completely normal for people to put those things up outside their houses at a time like that.
You think it’s weird when people put one up around football tournaments, for example?
I realise defending the government to any extent is pretty unpopular here, but they mean delivering this, surely. I mean this page specifically, not the manifesto as a whole. labour.org.uk/change/missi...
I seem to remember that being a pretty dull book. It might be quite interesting today though to see what he said back then about energy. I seem to remember there was a lot on that.
Two important omissions from this story The reporting barrister, Steven Barrett, is associated with “Lawyers for Borders” who encourage and assist local authorities seeking these injunctions Complaints about judicial case management decisions are outside the remit of the conduct body
Thanks! But there’s something funny going on with the ebook of Logopolis. I get £1.99 of I look on one device, £3.99 on another
In fairness, one way to misunderstand him might to think he wanted #DrWho to be "hard sci-fi". Those stories definitely aren't that. But they are less silly in tone, and more focused on mind-bending sort-of-sciencey (sciencey-wiencey?) ideas, than what he was reacting to. He succeeded in that.
I think people made of pure maths who reject their creator to do good is one of the most quietly beautiful ideas in Dr Who. “You made us man of evil but we are free.” RIP Christopher H Bidmead.
It says £5.99 on the site.
Following the news of the sad death of Doctor Who script editor Christopher H Bidmead this weekend we've reduced the two recent Black Archives on his LOGOPOLIS and CASTROVALVA to £1.99 for the rest of the week. obversebooks.co.uk/product/76-l... obversebooks.co.uk/product/77-c...
Sure, but isn't that the very weakness of the move? True, our PM can ask Israel to work towards making the Palestinian state more genuinely self-governing, but can no longer really ask that it help bring it into existence. It must already exist as far as Britain is concerned, if we recognise it.
The thing I don't get about this policy is: how can you recognise Palestine, then call for a two-state solution? Haven't you yourself declared that there are two states?
You're right, they're rubbish.
Very sorry to hear about Christopher Bidmead's death. As script editor, he gave DW a new lease of life during Tom's last year, with a season of extraordinarily interesting and tonally wide-ranging stories.
I just rewatched Logopolis today and was struck by the uniqueness of Bidmead's voice. Entropy as an all-consuming inevitability, quiet falling on Logopolis, the overgrown TARDIS cloisters, the Doctor haunted by the ghost of his future... There's no other story quite like it. RIP
Thinking back to the past though, Jamie wore a consistent costume, as did Harry I think pretty much, and of course the UNIT guys.
That hadn't occurred to me before. The 5th Doctor is arguably more consistent in his costume than 3 and even 4, isn't he? Maybe Tegan was a way of messaging to us that characters would in effect wear uniforms now (although she actually did that less than others, funnily enough).
Yes, this is one of the thoughts I've had. Watching Logopolis and Castrovalva yesterday, I kept thinking "That's just magic, isn't it?". I think his contribution to #DrWho was really interesting, and those stories well worth watching, but I can't say I'm 100% convinced by his approach.
I didn't!
Someone I know has long thought Mr Justice Bean, and now Lord Justice Bean, was the funniest judge name.
Haven't read the PX report on ECHR. Does it suggest that the German car industry will step in to fix any potential problems?
I think the creepiness of season 18 gets forgotten in discussion of the high scientific concepts and social entropy, the Marshmen, Melkur, Tharils, etc, all lurk in the shadows until their true moral meaning is revealed nodding to classic English ghost stories. RIP. #doctorwho
The PolEx paper on the GFA and ECHR is obviously daft. But we should question why such a silly piece makes big headlines - including the front page of "serious" newspapers - as soon as it is published. It isn't because the arguments are compelling.
The new Iris Murdoch Society podcast season begins with a celebration of 'A Word Child' on its 50th Anniversary. soundcloud.com/user-5488042... A new episode every fortnight.
Saw this tweet and think the Norway SWF is a great example of how a good national and political culture is a super power. Agree with the general sentiment that if the uk had a trillion in the bank either Labour would spend it on welfare or the tories would spend it on the state pension.
My main issue with the debate around ECHR is that no one advocating for it seems willing to accept that the past decade of politics has shown us that withdrawing from organisations/treaties/institutions always has more unintended consequences than intended, usually negative.
They know it wouldn't solve "small boats" or anyway don't care much whether it would or not; they know it'd cause a problem for Northern Ireland, and don't really care. But they'll claim any fake upside and deny every real downside, because what they really do care about is Brexit 2.0.
An interesting question about legal professional regulation.
It is of course a frivolous charge by a frivolous man. But there is a serious point here: the attempt by some on the reactionary right to claim that left or left of centre affiliation is illegitimate and disqualifying.
A writer has died who had a massive influence over my imagination as a 10-year-old. Christopher H Bidmead took silly stuff seriously and serious stuff lightly, and I know that all of the melancholia and non-place stuff in Logopolis definitely wired my head
I'm not sure I'm with you on this! I think it's a silly question. You might as well ask Badenoch how different her policies are from Starmer's, since they both say they want growth and prosperity. Or Trump's an Starmer's, since they both say they want peace in Ukraine. Silly questions.
It doesn’t take account of the TCA.
We honestly need some sort of public education campaign.
I meant when I was there to try the pub at the other end of that road—the Hen & Chickens?— but never got there. I wonder if you will.
I think you're making a good point. I reckon these poll numbers are partly because 1—the government really does face a difficult situation, and is bound to be pretty unpopular however well it's tackling things in reality, and 2—the Conservatives are seriously weak.
Yes—this has become a really unpleasant feature especially of the radical right in recent years. They've brewed a really anti-rule of law and anti-law subculture inside the Conservatives, as well as Reform. There's a bit of it on the left too.
No, no—seems a good write up to me (I heard the judgment on the livestream yesterday). I'm just mildly amused by the last section about whether it could "set a precedent".
I sort of think this about all angry-type protesters to be honest, whatever their ostensible cause. I don't mean they're all as bad as racists or that all causes are interchangeable. But I do think to understand them it helps if we focus on the activity itself, rather than what they say.
No doubt in medicine there are similar things. For a legal nerd it's interesting that in legal contexts journalists can't resist using the language of precedent, but almost always in its non-legal meaning (a first, setting a trend) rather than its technical legal meaning (establishing a legal rule).
I’ve never read a better book, and have only read a few that can compare. Well worth 90 minutes a day!
It’s odd that the Tory councils took no action against asylum hotels when their party was in power in Westminster but waited until there was a Labour government. #r4today
What the hell is this nonsense from @skynewss.bsky.social ? Why are they even toying with the ‘political judiciary’ line? Dangerous foolishness from a respectable news outlet. @sophyridge.bsky.social any chance of an internal editorial chat… news.sky.com/story/politi...
But possible. And more likely, the more bonkers the other main party is.
To be fair I also think a lot of people have started to think again about this, now that there’s a lot of nasty, damaging and antisocial right wing protest.
You’re right, but I’m afraid I can see how some people on the left would think this legit. For some time lots of people on the left have seemed to think nasty, damaging and antisocial behaviour is okay, and even laudable, if done in the same of protest.
To be fair to BBC journalists, this point in written submissions (which they may well have been shown) may be what led them to suggest the government had argued that asylum seekers' human rights trumped other considerations.
I'm talking specifically about the Thoburn doctrine of constitutional statutes as the explanation for why a statute like the ECA 1972 couldn't be impliedly repealed. I don't mean anything wider than that.
But I'm not talking about repeal generally! I don't think this question relates to anything I've said.
I think it's a good article overall, but in that section there's quite a bit of "easier said that done" stuff.
Saw a discussion on here I could not reply to about "implied repeal" in Uk legislation. The notion that in 2025 implied repeal arguments can be run seriously in any legal context is preposterous. The notion should have been put to bed after BH v Lord Advocate [2012] UKSC 24 and the comments on
It was a rubbish decision on the balance of convenience, wasn't it? How can he have thought clearing out that hotel, finding new places for those staying there, and encouraging further protests and injunction applications was more convenient than the status quo for a few weeks?
What Act would you say has impliedly repealed it?
not sure how sustainable a party list system should be at Holyrood when fourth party in Scotland can barely muster 950 to vote for its leader, and where a decision of 60 or so in some areas can give a top place on the list. Either open Party vote to allow preferences for candidates or adopt STV
I've not noticed individuals getting more radical here, but I think I agree with what you say about it being a place of ideological 'consolation and constraint'. And I see a constant stream here of "bitter and quotidian opposition to the first social-democratic government in years", as you put it.
I see the people usually condemning unelected judges for blocking government policy are today condemning unelected judges for not blocking government policy.
It's the wording of s3 that does this. There's no need for a theory of constitutional statutes, and such a theory fails to answer the key questions. Such as: why isn't s3 impliedly repealed by a later constitutional statute? The answer is again, because of its wording.
You're right to be very concerned about this, and it is a massive risk, but I don't think it is actually inevitable. I also think it's possible that a party could permanently exclude itself from power by its extremism.
My view is that it's precisely the constant focus on grand reform that has caused many people in the UK to believe as you do (I think wrongly) that "there are no effective constitutional checks in the British system".
The FTPA ought to have taught us how much confusion and damage can be caused by a reform many saw as modernising, progressive and principled. It really helped erode understanding of and belief in traditional constraints on government.
I'm afraid I can't think of a suitably gastronomic reply, except to say the kitchen staff can't cook both. In the UK, constant chatter about grand reform has had the effect of eroding belief and confidence in existing norms. That'd just get even worse if the LibDems had their way.
Why not?
I think the constitutional statutes thing was a really bad angle. Better to stick with ordinary statutory interpretation. It was the the wording of the ECA 1972 that produced its effects, not its status.
It took the context of Factortame to show that this was possible: that that could be the true meaning of two Acts read together. It doesn't follow of course that Ellen Street and Vauxhall were wrongly decided in their contexts.
I suppose on reflection even the unsuccessful argument isn't all that heretical. Partly it was just ahead of its time, and wrong in context rather than as a matter of deep principle. Factortame shows us Parliament can actually subject future enactments to a current one.
It's a real breakthrough if politically engaged Brits, having seen Trump, realise that what we need here is not the familiar LibDem agenda of "constitutional reform" (PR, an elected Lords, a written constitution) but a revival of and commitment to our existing, traditional constitutional norms.
I've been developing my fandom or Whovianism or whatever over the last year or so, as most of classic Who is now on iPlayer. In the past I did sometimes buy DVDs but iPlayer has made a big difference, encouraging me to watch the whole thing through for the first time.
I think he's being ironic!
I quite like them, but that one's very, very wrong.
The result, yes - not the unsuccessful argument.