Is there any previous, legal precedent for not publishing names of people who may end up in the magistrates court (at worst). If not, there is no excuse, barrier or law surely to this being printed. In full. Names an’ all. @gordondaviesmoustache can you enlighten us?That's not easy to guess is it mate?
However it's irrelevant now as the Met have announced their investigation will be limited to issuing fixed penalty notices for breaching Covid regulations.
Which makes redacting Sue Gray's report so as not to prejudice their investigations total overkill.
Which is the lesson, electoral-winning machine Blair grasped immediately. Ditched clause IV, angered the Left. And gained the Centre. Cosied up to Murdoch, angered the Left, won support from the popular press, gained massively influential coverage and smashed the ‘97 election.It is if you replace them with a much greater number of potential voters.
At its recent peak, membership of the Labour Party was barely over 1% of the electorate, and if half of them won’t vote for Labour but 10% more of the general population will, then it’s clearly worth doing.
There are various statutory powers, such as the Criminal Procedure Rules and The Administration of Justice Act 1960, over and above the restrictions on reporting on children, but they are rarely exercised because of the overarching desire to have open justice.Is there any previous, legal precedent for not publishing names of people who may end up in the magistrates court (at worst). If not, there is no excuse, barrier or law surely to this being printed. In full. Names an’ all. @gordondaviesmoustache can you enlighten us?
The key thing is that he’s making Labour electable because he understands that most of the electorate are in a different place than most of the Labour Party members. At the end of the day LP members make up about 1% of the electorate and if his policies will encourage an additional 10% of the electorate to vote Labour he is being pragmatic.Let's take this to the Starmer thread.
As a LP member I've been suspended and he's taking more internal power away from the members and centralising it to his blairite tribute mates in the PLP.
The key thing is that he’s making Labour electable because he understands that most of the electorate are in a different place than most of the Labour Party members. At the end of the day LP members make up about 1% of the electorate and if his policies will encourage an additional 10% of the electorate to vote Labour he is being pragmatic.
As for Fumble calling him a liar because he’s not as hard and fast on his leadership pledges as he would like, he needs to recognise that situations evolve and if he has subsequently recognised that those pledges were not getting traction with the electorate it makes perfect sense to update his position. Getting into number 10 to displace the worst PM in history has got to be every sane person’s most important aim and pissing off a few Corbynites is price worth paying.
The last Labour government lasted 13 years and achieved many things, and was only done for by the global financial crisis. I’d take a repeat of 1997-2007 in a heartbeat. Excluding Iraq of course.I see.
All that matters is replacing the unacceptable face of the right with an acceptable face of the right.
We've been here before, it never ends well.
The last Labour government lasted 13 years and achieved many things, and was only done for by the global financial crisis. I’d take a repeat of 1997-2007 in a heartbeat. Excluding Iraq of course.
Pretty much.This made me smile.
You mean Blair.
You want New Labour.
Fair enough, you've an outside chance you might get it.
Pretty much.
Brown was ok as well, just unlucky that his tenure coincided with the global financial crisis.