Leeds Ram

It'd make more sense to appoint someone who had them in the first place 

If you have had the jab they can track you.. Saw it on Twitter.. It’s why the second needle is bigger.

I think you have to request a letter from your GP.

How do you not have a smartphone, these days that’s like admitting you don’t have a pair of lungs, especially at your age.
Not one of these doing everything not to be tracked by the government are you?

Honestly I don't know. I think a lot of it hinges on how brexit works out, the economy and the functional running of the opposition in the next 2-3 years. It might be that things revert back to pre 2019 with previously labour voters returning home (although class de-alignment in relation to voting has been a phenomenon here since 79)  or it could be a resurgent third party starts to take a chunk out of 2 tired old parties seemingly out of ideas. Or the Conservatives could consolidate. 

I was hoping to see a response from you on that. Very interesting stuff. Cheers!

I'm always wary of an article praising Peter Oborne tbh. The guy is a walking contrarian to conservatism whose built a career on a self declared proclamation that I haven't seen evidence for in a long long time.  His book on the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was fit for nothing but the rubbish and he has been on a downward spiral for years. The tone of the article is setting us up against those illiberal democracies and envisioning that we are going down that path but reassuring the reader we aren't there yet, it striked me as a bit of a subtle attempt of fear mongering. 

It's description of the UK constitution is really fundamentally flawed, the constitution is not unwritten it is uncodified and its ending description of it is just fundamentally quite ignorant of our constitutional history.  It also ignores the very real political restrictions embedded inside the constitution that do restrict the executive's ability to commit to action. Alongside this it paints a picture of mixing in political distortion with authoritarianism, these are different forms of political machinations with different end goals and different tactics. 

Yet ultimately, the last few paragraphs I do agree with and it kind of works as an anti-thesis to the very argument they were proposing. Politically, Johnson has been given space and time because of the pandemic but once that goes away he's got a weak economy, brexit, and a political party that has a history of patricide to contend with. His majority of 86 only looks strong because recent history (from 2010) has given us coalitions, confidence and supply arrangements and tiny majorities.  The electoral map is in the middle of reshaping itself making predictions inherently unpredictable and Johnson's character means once the sheen wears off it's difficult for him to reingratiate himself with people.

All of this ensures a weakened executive that by its nature will not be able to pull off the radically controversial moves the article is afraid of.  

Can you send me that political essay when you've finished please? Oh sorry, thought that was @Leeds Ram posting again, not you! Easy mistake to make with your balanced and nuanced viewpoint.

The emergency legislation was put through the legislature faster than is usual because of the special circumstances of the situation. The corona emergency act is the initial piece of legislation where the authorisation for many measures come from and it's also the source of many of the constraints that inhibit the executive. There are specific measures that require Parliamentary votes which is again one of the limitations to the executives powers during this time which maybe you're referring to? There have been some rules that have been subject to judicial challenge such as the proposed ban on care home visitations that was argued to violate the Human Rights Act for instance. 
They aren't supposed limitations they are actual concrete legal limitations that have the full force of Parliament and the courts. Again, pretending the UK is in a position where there is no distinction between ourselves and authoritarian states where the rule of law means nothing is I think a pretty fundamental error. I'm not saying the government is perfect or we should be blind to potential 'mission creep' of these measures but there are significant limitations both in time and space for these measures. 
No, that's not what I've said or believe.  

The analogy of not being as far down the road doesn't really stack up though which was my point. These alternative countries have produced different forms of governing and ripped up existing protections that were already diluted before the coronavirus because they are implementing a style of governance termed 'illiberal democracy'. This is presented as a more 'democratic' alternative to liberal democracy predicated upon the argument that liberalism necessarily inhibits democratic approaches, therefore the roadmap in these countries has always been to strip away liberal protections that previously existed. For instance, in Hungary this has meant changing the existing constitution with specific wide ranging changes to the court system which has also been the case in Poland. 

This is not the case in the United Kingdom. The existing measures that have been implemented via Parliament are bundled with a lot of restrictions that I've already described such as sunset clauses limiting their time period, authorisation, use, and all secondary measures that flow from the legislation are able to be challenged in the courts too. So it's not the case that we're not as far down the road, it's more like we're on a very different road that rather than stripping away people's rights systematically, the legislation and limitations of the measures is designed to do the very opposite. I'm not saying that all concerns about the emergency measures are invalid but the idea that we're setting ourselves up to be permanently restricting essential freedoms to me doesn't match what the legislation and its limitations basically says. 

The analogy of not being as far down the road doesn't really stack up though which was my point. These alternative countries have produced different forms of governing and ripped up existing protections that were already diluted before the coronavirus because they are implementing a style of governance termed 'illiberal democracy'. This is presented as a more 'democratic' alternative to liberal democracy predicated upon the argument that liberalism necessarily inhibits democratic approaches, therefore the roadmap in these countries has always been to strip away liberal protections that previously existed. For instance, in Hungary this has meant changing the existing constitution with specific wide ranging changes to the court system which has also been the case in Poland. 

This is not the case in the United Kingdom. The existing measures that have been implemented via Parliament are bundled with a lot of restrictions that I've already described such as sunset clauses limiting their time period, authorisation, use, and all secondary measures that flow from the legislation are able to be challenged in the courts too. So it's not the case that we're not as far down the road, it's more like we're on a very different road that rather than stripping away people's rights systematically, the legislation and limitations of the measures is designed to do the very opposite. I'm not saying that all concerns about the emergency measures are invalid but the idea that we're setting ourselves up to be permanently restricting essential freedoms to me doesn't match what the legislation and its limitations basically says. 

I think a healthy mistrust would be being very worried if there were none of these things in the legislation and the government had granted themselves the authority to do what they like via decree for an unlimited time period. That's exactly the type of actions that have taken place in some authoritarian states such as Hungary due to Corona legislation. This has led to a complete lack of oversight in an already wilting constitutional illiberal democracy, but the inverse is what's happening here. 

Thanks, am glad you found it interesting ? Yeah you're not wrong, taking executive action in proroguing Parliament does fit very neatly into this type of argument even if it isn't technically a state of emergency. That did also lay up some very interesting constitutional questions about the powers of the PM and the role of the supreme court, with many feeling the supreme court had started to become a more activist body checking the powers of the executive in ways not necessarily imagined when the body was first created. 

If you read the emergency corona legislation you'll find there are plenty of limitations on executive powers most importantly the sunset clauses on the legislation that protect us, reintroduction of Parliamentary scrutiny and limitations on ministerial decrees that can be exercised. Furthermore, anything not enshrined in primary legislation can be challenged via the courts and potentially struck down if it crosses protections that primary legislation does give us. 

If all that wasn't enough we then have Parliamentary opposition in the form of Boris struggling with a few of his backbenchers and the press. Currently, the polling suggests people want more measures to be in place so the government is currently swimming against the tide of political opinion by opening up and easing all restrictions. That is hardly the actions of a populist government coming for your long earned hard fought liberty. 

The article you posted was very interesting cheers. The dangers it refuted seemed more real to the prorouging of Parliament the Autumn before Covid, that a much higher proportion of the population were against vs than the minority who opposed the first lockdown.

Yeah agree with your first paragraph.
Cheers for the link, I'll take a look. Full article would be interesting too thanks, sounds great.
Have you, or anyone else, seen the Pegasus stuff in the Guardian this weak? That looks like something far more dangerous than getting into nightclubs.

Yeah, I am sympathetic to people concerned about government control in certain areas but some of the overreaction and hysteria has been a bit much from some. The idea it's all some sort of grand plan is absolutely laughable.  

https://www.whattodoaboutnow.com/post/have-our-governments-become-too-powerful-corona-and-the-state-of-exception Here is an article that is a short form version of the argument I'm making. I can message you a copy of the full journal article once it's finished if you'd like. 

Will you open your eyes when you are being rounded up and shot?!
Sounds an interesting paper, would be great to share more details if you are allowed?

I'm actually in the process of writing a paper that I delivered at the PSA (political studies association) conference on comparing lockdowns and emergency measures in liberal democracies and authoritarian states such as Hungary. The difference in both how the measures are exercised and limited is vast and puts paid to any belief that it's all simply a grab for power. 

I am definitely losing the plot with all this.  The vax does not stop you getting infected.  Talking from a Gibraltar position everybody here has had the double.  However, infections are rising, small numbers but proportionally of interest.  152 active cases, 127 are residents with 467 self isolating.  Somewhere sometime we need to rely on the protection of the vaccination and live with the risk of infection surely?
I have bee very supportive of lockdowns and social distancing but when do we accept life is a risk.

It's old and I've seen it before but I'd definitely recommend 'Rome'. It's only two seasons unfortunately due to the severe cost of the sets and costumes meaning the second season is rushed a little in sotry but in general has excellent production quality and acting. 

Just this tbh. I haven't seen Lawrence do much on the pitch in terms of leadership but what he has done is get himself stupidly sent off, losing his head in vital moments and played a big hand in derailing a season because of drink driving and injuring his teammates. It wasn't so long ago many were calling for him to be sacked just like Keogh was but now we're all onboard making him captain?  It seems as fans that many are increasingly taking this approach of defending illogical things (such as wasting our time with Ravel Morrison) because they might somehow set off a spark and produce a genie out of the bottle but when looked at in the cold light of day don't make much sense. 

It does and it doesn't. Huddlestone's phrasing it a bit ambiguous by saying 'wayne has to play' and cocu had a 'remit' to continue to develop and push Bird on. I'm not sure if that means that's Cocu's priorities for the team or if there is some form of direction specifically with selecting younger or more high profile players that was a top down direction. Combining that with the accusation made by Huddlestone that training and game performances wouldn't be what he'd be picking the team on and it makes for a pretty damaging interview. 
 
 

Just this tbh. I haven't seen Lawrence do much on the pitch in terms of leadership but what he has done is get himself stupidly sent off, losing his head in vital moments and played a big hand in derailing a season because of drink driving and injuring his teammates. It wasn't so long ago many were calling for him to be sacked just like Keogh was but now we're all onboard making him captain?  It seems as fans that many are increasingly taking this approach of defending illogical things (such as wasting our time with Ravel Morrison) because they might somehow set off a spark and produce a genie out of the bottle but when looked at in the cold light of day don't make much sense. 

Just this tbh. I haven't seen Lawrence do much on the pitch in terms of leadership but what he has done is get himself stupidly sent off, losing his head in vital moments and played a big hand in derailing a season because of drink driving and injuring his teammates. It wasn't so long ago many were calling for him to be sacked just like Keogh was but now we're all onboard making him captain?  It seems as fans that many are increasingly taking this approach of defending illogical things (such as wasting our time with Ravel Morrison) because they might somehow set off a spark and produce a genie out of the bottle but when looked at in the cold light of day don't make much sense.