[davidjay]

Isn't wanting your biggest rival's voters just basic common sense?

[Oboogie]

Isn't wanting your biggest rival's voters just basic common sense?

Dirty boy!! It's not all about winning, what about purity?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Caught BBC Radio News headlines. Leading on Trump attacking Starmer. Keep that up, best media he’s had for ages.

[Bones McCoy]

Caught BBC Radio News headlines. Leading on Trump attacking Starmer. Keep that up, best media he’s had for ages.

I caught this at 08:00 this morning.
Followed by opinion pieces by:
* A Trump serving Republican.
* An old Tory government advisor.

[Tubby Isaacs]

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ury-trials

The Institute of Government on the likely effect of the Government's courts bill.

They project a saving of 9-13% in Crown Court time. This sounds substantial and worthwhile to me. A fair point is made about the low level of legal aid thresholds for magistrates courts, which will probably lead to people representing themselves (which can waste a lot of time). Wouldn't it be better to fund that better? Even so, the net saving of time should be substantial, even if it takes time to get the underlying system in place to do it. Sadly, it's one of those things that I can imagine taking time to work, while everybody piles in against it, and then gets ridiculed and scrapped.

I had a glance at the Leveson report underlying this (not all of which has been taken up, as the IfG report makes clear). But one thing stood out for me from it, that people who have done jury service are from universally positive about the experience. Lots were less positive about juries after serving on one, and thought that the case could have been decided by a magistrate.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Oh no, Karl Turner isn't convinced.

Efforts by David Lammy, the justice secretary, to change the mind of one of the leading Labour figures opposed to the plans, the backbencher Karl Turner, failed after the men met on Monday night.

Turner, who had previously coordinated a letter from 38 Labour MPs urging the prime minister to reverse the plans, said he had “absolutely not” been convinced.

The Guardian may be overcooking this rebellion here. It would still easily pass on these numbers all voting against it.

The Conservatives are expected to force a vote to try to block the second reading in parliament on Tuesday. However, the true scale of the Labour rebellion may not yet be evident.

More than 65 Labour MPs are thought to be considering voting against the bill, but it is understood that many may abstain and instead vote against it at a later stage of the legislative process, such as report stage.

The Tory Justice spokesman is (incredibly) Nick Timothy. The Government Whips are already preparing "You think this arsehole cares about justice?" pitches to rebels.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see some of the online left have alighted on the Courts Minister, of all the ministers in the Government, who have failed to condemn the US bombing Iran. Can you guess the ethnicity of the Courts Minister?

Another clue- she accepted a donation of £7,500 from someone who is the same ethnicity as she is. Have you got it yet?

You were probably thinking that she was just putting forward the agreed Cabinet position, which exists for very obvious strategic reasons. But you're wrong. The real issue is... can you guess yet? They get everywhere, you know, and have lots of power.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see lots of lawyers are opposed to the changes to jury trials. It may well be political suicide to take on this (probably) left leaning group. But I was just reminded of this.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/bu ... ax-on-llps

Budget 2026: why we’re firmly opposing a potential new tax on LLPs

It's really the same stuff that anybody else says because they don't want to pay more tax. Blah blah might cause offshoring. Blah already dealing with enough change.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The Guardian actually has a point here,

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tion-rules

Home Office refuses to exempt exceptional students from tough immigration rules
Exclusive: Foreign secretary Yvette Cooper concerned about student visa ban on female Chevening scholars from volatile countries such as Afghanistan

Quite kind framing- it's not the Home Office, it's Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary who is refusing.

I get where the government are coming from. Student visas aren't supposed to be a route to claiming asylum, and under political pressure to reduce numbers, it's perhaps understandable that they seek to restrict that. But the Chevening scheme is a scheme for exceptional students. We're talking about small numbers.

This story may have been leaked by people not a million miles away from Yvette Cooper. And I've no problem with that, hope it forces a U-turn.

[The Weeping Angel]

Not good, on the other hand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx ... ium=social

Dozens of hereditary peers are set to lose their seats in the House of Lords, after the passage of a bill that will end a parliamentary role dating back hundreds of years.

Peers passed the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill after ministers offered a compromise to end a long-running dispute with opponents of the reform.

The majority of hereditary peers, who inherit their titles through their families, were abolished in 1999 under the last Labour government and this bill gets rid of the last remaining 92.

Lords Leader Baroness Smith said the "historic legislation" realised Labour's manifesto pledge to remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit and vote in the upper house.

"This has never been about the contribution of individuals but the underlying principle that was agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago that no-one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title," Baroness Smith said.

"Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary peers remain whilst meaningful reform has stagnated.

"We have a duty to find a way forward."

Baroness Smith confirmed the government would offer life peerages to some of the Conservatives and crossbenchers who would otherwise lose their seats.

As a result, the Conservatives withdrew their opposition to the bill.

Up to 92 hereditary peers will leave the Lords when the current session of Parliament ends, which is expected to be in May.

The Conservative leader in the Lords, Lord True, said he accepted the government's mandate to end hereditary membership of the upper house.

[Oboogie]

I see some of the online left have alighted on the Courts Minister, of all the ministers in the Government, who have failed to condemn the US bombing Iran. Can you guess the ethnicity of the Courts Minister?

Another clue- she accepted a donation of £7,500 from someone who is the same ethnicity as she is. Have you got it yet?

You were probably thinking that she was just putting forward the agreed Cabinet position, which exists for very obvious strategic reasons. But you're wrong. The real issue is... can you guess yet? They get everywhere, you know, and have lots of power.

I do find myself pondering that the very people who are fond of calling Israel an apartheid state, would have no objection to a bit of apartheid in the UK.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This thing of picking out “Zionist” money is very poisonous.

Good to see the back of the hereditary peers. There’s been far too much arsing about on something that was in the manifesto. This stuff and the barely disguised filibustering on assisted dying have moved me to a harder line position on the Lords. Abolition should be in the next manifesto.

[Andy McDandy]

The issue there is what you replace it with. And besides, it's just so damned convenient at times.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Election on basis of proportional PR, with no constituencies. That isn’t too difficult. Harder bit is what power they have to challenge the Commons.

[Killer Whale]

Arguably, that would give it more legitimacy than a Commons with a majority elected by 33% of the voting electorate.
Ideally, I'd switch it around. Have the Commons elected by STV and the 'Lords' (300ish members?) elected in single member constituencies.

[Andy McDandy]

Just thinking back to 2011 though. How do you sell it to the bulk of the electorate?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Changing the Commons after it’s just been elected and was felt to have enough to be getting on with already wasn’t popular. Not least because hardly anyone had heard of the Alternative Vote before.

But Lords reform, following a manifesto, would be different. And an increase on voters’ powers.

[Bones McCoy]

Election on basis of proportional PR, with no constituencies. That isn’t too difficult. Harder bit is what power they have to challenge the Commons.

I really dislike the prospect of "party lists".
A look at the otherwise unelectable chancers who became MSPs is a good argument against lists.

I am in favour of an elected second chamber.
I just can't see a safe way to de-couple it from recent commons votes.
The risk being that a majority in Commons and Second chamber becomes the proverbial elected dictatorship.

Keywords: USA, checks and balances, MAGA.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I agree with you as far as the primary chamber, definitely. Doesn't strike me as so important for the secondary chamber. I think closed lists are simpler, and the elected second chamber should be as simple as possible, get it working.