I sort of get your concerns about KB, you expect a leader of a country to have shared the same growing ups and downs as the rest of us. On the other hand, can you imagine any of the front bench of either party having a cultural memory worth sharing? The Labour front bench probably regard Spirtfires and the Red Arrows as emblems of colonialism, misogyny and nostalgia for Empire. As to what they think of the rest of our cultural and religious heritage, there's not a lot to say. You would think that Keir and Rishi were brought up in some laboratory (beneath a mountain in Switzerland, perhaps?) Maybe someone from another country will have a better appreciation that we do?
Sunak and Starmer are androgynous robots. Neither have any fire in their belly, their families come out of the same lab, their voices, like Siri or Kryten, chosen from whimsy.
Kemi was also behind the previous government's biggest economic achievement in CPTPP accession (Rishi stupidly called the election before this took effect) and the one socially conservative thing it did: saying no to the nuttier trans activists.
She's also married with kids to a posh boy of Scottish heritage. Has as much stake in the country and as good a record as any candidate.
Tiptoeing gently around the Badenoch issue, a sign of the times and perish the thought your words will be stored to be used against you in future, not good for anybody with political ambitions.
A bluff direct northerner with neither ambitions nor inhibitions, if he is even wary, thinks 'We are still 82% white, why do we need a Nigerian PM?' Regardless of skin colour she is no Churchill, no Thatcher, Labour call her a coconut and accuse her of some sort of betrayal. Personally I cannot detect any qualities good or bad and see no inkling of charisma, as passionless as Starmer. The rest are no better and should be ditched for a caretaker like IDS until some miracle occurs.
Courts. Where did that apparatus go? Where did the GP and the state enrolled nurse go? Degrees for nurses? They were carers, a degree should qualify for routine prescribing, minor ops.
I watched your Nick Dixon interview, read your recent substacks. You criticise Reform's vision, say they deal with symptoms. You point airily to a decade hence. Too academic, a luxury we don't have.
Have you been to St Louis? The pioneers, the frontiersmen set forth from there with mules and wagons. Visit, take some inspiration. Rough men, strong men and women; thoroughbreds, railroads, theatres followed later. Enter Farage the frontiersman. He doesn't want the White House, he wants a ranch and a corner of a bar in New Clacton. Braverman and Habib can do the boring stuff, where your finger points.
Reform still suffers from the amateur Tice. The website done by 5th formers. I think they need you onside unlike the metro fools at the Telegraph and Spectator.
Some decent points on Badenoch. People of British ancestry can no longer rely on being represented by their own. It is one of the most significant situations in our entire history, and it does not even feature in mainstream debate. Furthermore, raising this in certain settings could not occur without inviting scorn and contempt. White Brits are a stateless people uniquely dispossessed.
Regarding your point on dealing with lesser criminal offences. The Magistrates Court would always require custody spaces to deal with serious offenders whose cases are first heard there. But yes, perhaps your suggestion for dealing with lesser offences would enable freeing more court rooms. I'm not sure I would invest more trust in magistrates though. It's a tricky one.
Would you say the same about Disraeli, whose grandad was an Italian Jewish merchant who came to London to do business? Conversely, Kim Philby and many other Soviet spies came from upper crust backgrounds.
Kemi to me seems to care about Britain more than most. I think she should be given a chance.
I'm concerned about: "We would move to a model of examining magistrates where there are no lawyers, and the magistrate interviews and cross examines directly the witnesses, and calls for police and technical investigations as needed, deciding a case on the basis of the evidence examined." Individual rights are of paramount importance.
Magna Carta is still hanging on by a thread. Clause 39 is so important, in my mind. It states that “no free man shall be…imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed]… except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Handing all that power over to the state gives the state too much power and the state will not stop there.
I'll add a quote by Baroness Helena Kennedy below as I believe it is so important. Churchill wrote something similar.
The first mistake is a failure to see that law is cultural. ... Unlike the rest of Europe, which has what is called the 'civil law' system with codified laws and a career judiciary, we have a common law system. ... as new democracies have emerged around the world and sought to adopt a Western model they have most frequently replicated civil law systems because they are easier to take off the shelf. Their basic rules take the form of codes - huge statutes which set out the laws in detail, number by number, along with the central concepts and doctrines. For the most part the judges have little or no power to add to or subtract from the law, which is entirely contained in the codes. Their function is to interpret these rules.
The common law on the other hand was essentially created by judges as they decided actual cases. Judges in the higher courts dealt with appeals from lower courts and, in pursuit of a real rather than formal justice, took account of the experience of real litigants and real situations. One of the reasons why contemporary markets thrive in common-law-based nations is because Napoleonic, codified systems entrench bureaucracy. The dead hand of the state is heavier where there is little legal flexibility. The discretion vested in judges provides just enough 'give' to prevent rigidity. Even today, when large parts of the law are created by statutes passed in parliament, the judges have a significant role in developing the law. While our judges are drawn from the ranks of practising lawyers with everyday experience of representing clients, judges in the civil law system are civil servants. judging is a career from the start and the training of judges is separate from that of lawyers. ... The civil system is an inquisitorial system, whereas our system is adversarial.
In many ways laws are the autobiography of a nation and in Britain we have many proud stories to tell but we also have shameful chapters. This book is meant to be an alarm call about the way our liberties are being eroded. A serious abandonment of principle is in train; all of us have to say it's time to stop.
(Baroness Helena Kennedy from her book Just Law 2005.)
Of all the leadership candidates, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick seem to be the only two who hold some actual conservative values. Kemi would get my vote though, for no other reason than I'd quite like to "lose my deposit in her despatch box". I do not feel this way about Jenrick.
People would rather face decline that admit that their long held cherished beliefs are just that. Beliefs. Ideology is a powerful thing and it's hard to let go of the idea you're a 'good person'
(i.e not far right) I think there's probably a lot of delusion and cognitive dissonance with many of those on the left. They can see the decline but don't want to face the hard questions and even harder solutions. Easier to brand those who do as far right.
It is amusing though to see smart people moaning about overcrowded roads, housing estates going up and unaffordable homes for their kids. Mention then that maybe Farage has a point, sit back and enjoy ...
Exactly! They just blame 'the government' (especially the Tories) For many years now I have been very concerned about overpopulation and the environmental impact. I find it incredible that many of those who say they care about the environment have no issue with mass immigration. They don't seem to grasp that more people means more infrastructure needed, housing, roads, etc which will mean less green space.
I completely agree, and the reason I mentioned the left was probably a bit of projection, on my part. I used to be very left and opinionated, and dismissed anyone questioning immigration. for example, as being racist/far right. Then I grew up. The other thing is that (according to studies) left/liberals are almost 3 times more likely to cancel someone over their political beliefs than someone on the right (I hope I remembered this info correctly, as it was a while ago I read about it) I generally find that those on the left are less tolerant but that they sincerely believe they are good people and on the right side of history (being that their ideology is supposedly more about equality and helping people, which of course, are worthy ideals) I see this tendency on the left more, perhaps, because of my own history. Being very idealistic but having zero life experience. That said, I still feel I am more 'left' in some respects (as I read somewhere 'I didn't leave the left, the left left me') Interesting that you have had this experience with right wing people, too. Could it be that there is little difference now between so-called left and right? And that those on the right also share similar sentiments with those on the left regarding issues sich as immigration? To be honest, I rarely speak to my old friends in the U.K about politics and no longer live there, so most of my information comes from what I read (some news sites and excellent substacks, like this one!)
I sort of get your concerns about KB, you expect a leader of a country to have shared the same growing ups and downs as the rest of us. On the other hand, can you imagine any of the front bench of either party having a cultural memory worth sharing? The Labour front bench probably regard Spirtfires and the Red Arrows as emblems of colonialism, misogyny and nostalgia for Empire. As to what they think of the rest of our cultural and religious heritage, there's not a lot to say. You would think that Keir and Rishi were brought up in some laboratory (beneath a mountain in Switzerland, perhaps?) Maybe someone from another country will have a better appreciation that we do?
Sunak and Starmer are androgynous robots. Neither have any fire in their belly, their families come out of the same lab, their voices, like Siri or Kryten, chosen from whimsy.
Sad to say, they literally are programmed to say whatever the programmers want them to say. No personality, vision, originality, courage - nothing.
Kemi was also behind the previous government's biggest economic achievement in CPTPP accession (Rishi stupidly called the election before this took effect) and the one socially conservative thing it did: saying no to the nuttier trans activists.
She's also married with kids to a posh boy of Scottish heritage. Has as much stake in the country and as good a record as any candidate.
Tiptoeing gently around the Badenoch issue, a sign of the times and perish the thought your words will be stored to be used against you in future, not good for anybody with political ambitions.
A bluff direct northerner with neither ambitions nor inhibitions, if he is even wary, thinks 'We are still 82% white, why do we need a Nigerian PM?' Regardless of skin colour she is no Churchill, no Thatcher, Labour call her a coconut and accuse her of some sort of betrayal. Personally I cannot detect any qualities good or bad and see no inkling of charisma, as passionless as Starmer. The rest are no better and should be ditched for a caretaker like IDS until some miracle occurs.
Courts. Where did that apparatus go? Where did the GP and the state enrolled nurse go? Degrees for nurses? They were carers, a degree should qualify for routine prescribing, minor ops.
I watched your Nick Dixon interview, read your recent substacks. You criticise Reform's vision, say they deal with symptoms. You point airily to a decade hence. Too academic, a luxury we don't have.
Have you been to St Louis? The pioneers, the frontiersmen set forth from there with mules and wagons. Visit, take some inspiration. Rough men, strong men and women; thoroughbreds, railroads, theatres followed later. Enter Farage the frontiersman. He doesn't want the White House, he wants a ranch and a corner of a bar in New Clacton. Braverman and Habib can do the boring stuff, where your finger points.
Reform still suffers from the amateur Tice. The website done by 5th formers. I think they need you onside unlike the metro fools at the Telegraph and Spectator.
is David Davis too old to do the job? He's far, far more qualified than anyone who's actually going for it...
Some decent points on Badenoch. People of British ancestry can no longer rely on being represented by their own. It is one of the most significant situations in our entire history, and it does not even feature in mainstream debate. Furthermore, raising this in certain settings could not occur without inviting scorn and contempt. White Brits are a stateless people uniquely dispossessed.
Regarding your point on dealing with lesser criminal offences. The Magistrates Court would always require custody spaces to deal with serious offenders whose cases are first heard there. But yes, perhaps your suggestion for dealing with lesser offences would enable freeing more court rooms. I'm not sure I would invest more trust in magistrates though. It's a tricky one.
Would you say the same about Disraeli, whose grandad was an Italian Jewish merchant who came to London to do business? Conversely, Kim Philby and many other Soviet spies came from upper crust backgrounds.
Kemi to me seems to care about Britain more than most. I think she should be given a chance.
I'm concerned about: "We would move to a model of examining magistrates where there are no lawyers, and the magistrate interviews and cross examines directly the witnesses, and calls for police and technical investigations as needed, deciding a case on the basis of the evidence examined." Individual rights are of paramount importance.
Magna Carta is still hanging on by a thread. Clause 39 is so important, in my mind. It states that “no free man shall be…imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed]… except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” Handing all that power over to the state gives the state too much power and the state will not stop there.
I'll add a quote by Baroness Helena Kennedy below as I believe it is so important. Churchill wrote something similar.
The first mistake is a failure to see that law is cultural. ... Unlike the rest of Europe, which has what is called the 'civil law' system with codified laws and a career judiciary, we have a common law system. ... as new democracies have emerged around the world and sought to adopt a Western model they have most frequently replicated civil law systems because they are easier to take off the shelf. Their basic rules take the form of codes - huge statutes which set out the laws in detail, number by number, along with the central concepts and doctrines. For the most part the judges have little or no power to add to or subtract from the law, which is entirely contained in the codes. Their function is to interpret these rules.
The common law on the other hand was essentially created by judges as they decided actual cases. Judges in the higher courts dealt with appeals from lower courts and, in pursuit of a real rather than formal justice, took account of the experience of real litigants and real situations. One of the reasons why contemporary markets thrive in common-law-based nations is because Napoleonic, codified systems entrench bureaucracy. The dead hand of the state is heavier where there is little legal flexibility. The discretion vested in judges provides just enough 'give' to prevent rigidity. Even today, when large parts of the law are created by statutes passed in parliament, the judges have a significant role in developing the law. While our judges are drawn from the ranks of practising lawyers with everyday experience of representing clients, judges in the civil law system are civil servants. judging is a career from the start and the training of judges is separate from that of lawyers. ... The civil system is an inquisitorial system, whereas our system is adversarial.
In many ways laws are the autobiography of a nation and in Britain we have many proud stories to tell but we also have shameful chapters. This book is meant to be an alarm call about the way our liberties are being eroded. A serious abandonment of principle is in train; all of us have to say it's time to stop.
(Baroness Helena Kennedy from her book Just Law 2005.)
Of all the leadership candidates, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick seem to be the only two who hold some actual conservative values. Kemi would get my vote though, for no other reason than I'd quite like to "lose my deposit in her despatch box". I do not feel this way about Jenrick.
blimey am I over-thinking this or was that a declaration that you 'fancy' her? Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder I guess...
For me she lacks charm, no twinkle in those eyes, no gurgle of promising laughter.
People would rather face decline that admit that their long held cherished beliefs are just that. Beliefs. Ideology is a powerful thing and it's hard to let go of the idea you're a 'good person'
(i.e not far right) I think there's probably a lot of delusion and cognitive dissonance with many of those on the left. They can see the decline but don't want to face the hard questions and even harder solutions. Easier to brand those who do as far right.
It is amusing though to see smart people moaning about overcrowded roads, housing estates going up and unaffordable homes for their kids. Mention then that maybe Farage has a point, sit back and enjoy ...
Exactly! They just blame 'the government' (especially the Tories) For many years now I have been very concerned about overpopulation and the environmental impact. I find it incredible that many of those who say they care about the environment have no issue with mass immigration. They don't seem to grasp that more people means more infrastructure needed, housing, roads, etc which will mean less green space.
I completely agree, and the reason I mentioned the left was probably a bit of projection, on my part. I used to be very left and opinionated, and dismissed anyone questioning immigration. for example, as being racist/far right. Then I grew up. The other thing is that (according to studies) left/liberals are almost 3 times more likely to cancel someone over their political beliefs than someone on the right (I hope I remembered this info correctly, as it was a while ago I read about it) I generally find that those on the left are less tolerant but that they sincerely believe they are good people and on the right side of history (being that their ideology is supposedly more about equality and helping people, which of course, are worthy ideals) I see this tendency on the left more, perhaps, because of my own history. Being very idealistic but having zero life experience. That said, I still feel I am more 'left' in some respects (as I read somewhere 'I didn't leave the left, the left left me') Interesting that you have had this experience with right wing people, too. Could it be that there is little difference now between so-called left and right? And that those on the right also share similar sentiments with those on the left regarding issues sich as immigration? To be honest, I rarely speak to my old friends in the U.K about politics and no longer live there, so most of my information comes from what I read (some news sites and excellent substacks, like this one!)
Hear, hear!