Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 2h

There was indeed that option. It wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome, and in the circumstances might have been thought to be a little cowardly. There were two choices.

1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 2h

That's not what I said or meant. I don't know what would have turned out to have been "right". Nor has anyone else the data with which to plot the consequences of different decisions. I'm far from convinced that you are right either, despite your ironclad self-righteousness.

1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 3h

I won't throw stones because I agreed with most of the choices made at the time. And, unfashionably, I still think the best course would have been to put the May deal to a referendum. But, with startling originality, I could observe that we are where we are, so wallowing in hindsight is pointless.

1 4

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 4h

Nobody comes out of the Brexit negotiations smelling of roses. The whole thing was cock-up on cock-up. From 16 June 2016 onwards. And indeed for long before then.

1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 15h

That bill was a choice between Johnson's deal and no deal. Labour could indeed have voted against it, but that would have been a vote for a no deal exit.

3 3

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 17h

That is an entirely misleading claim. In the vote on the 3rd reading of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill on 9 January 2020 Labour (including its then leader Jeremy Corbyn) voted against (with a few exceptions of course). It passed 330/231.

1 2

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 2d

Going to the pub, for most people, is not primarily about getting drunk. It is about company and a bit of serendipitous intergenerational social contact and feeling part of a community (however self-selecting). And we don't have enough of that in our lives since we stopped going to church.

1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 4d

Tom Waits or possibly Patti Smith

1 1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 5d

I'm wondering if we could invent a (not very) new term to describe the problem you are confronting which would be "Authoritarian-Populist". I'm beginning to find "populist" a bit unhelpful.

1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 5d

If that's the dog's dinner heaven only knows what the rest of the family will be getting!

1 2

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 5d

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think she was an anarchist *and* paediatrician. I'm sure she would have treated children who weren't anarchists.

2

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 5d

Man after my own heart, but I have to confess to having owned a VHS player and seen Pan's Labyrinth. In compensation, I also have never seen Dirty Dancing nor have I listened to a note of Taylor Swift. (I think that last one is a bit of a clincher, personally. I win.)

1 4

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 6d

Strategic thinker. Classics is not competitive for entry these days.

1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 7d

2. The relevant total is 650 minus 4 Speakers and Deputies, minus 5 chairs of the committee who are disbarred from voting, minus 4 tellers, minus 7 Sinn Fein who do not take their seats and minus 9 SNP who as a matter of principle do not vote on E&W law. Total remaining 621. Half = 311.

4

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 7d

This is a slightly daft article. The claim that the Lords has a constitutional duty to pass the Assisted Dying Bill is no more "constitutionally illiterate" than the counter claim. But the claim that 315 votes in favour on 3rd reading in the Commons was not a majority of the House is just wrong./2

1 3

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 7d

thecritic.co.uk/peers-have-n...

Peers have no duty to vote for assisted dying | Fleur Elizabeth Meston | The Critic Magazine

Ellie Ball, Director of Communications at Dignity in Dying and Compassion in Dying, posted on X recently that “The Lords has an important duty to scrutinise, but it also has a constitutional duty to…

thecritic.co.uk

1 2

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 14d

Or subtitles. Or a suitably ponderous bit of dialogue in which someone says "My source has just texted me to say that the prime suspect has just visited the lost luggage office at Edinburgh Waverley station".

1 1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 15d

Jacques Delors got it right.

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 18d

"Men You Can Do Business With". (Obviously depends to an extent on the gender make-up of the band.)

2

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 20d

He should be excommunicated.

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 20d

I'm intrigued that you're addressing this to the Political Studies Association. I've gone off Hugh Bonneville a bit since he chose to do another effing sport-related follow-up to W1A rather than take up my suggestion of SW1A - in which Ian Fletcher becomes Director of Parliament's R&R programme.

1 3

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 20d

It seems entirely consistent with a movement more interested in rhetoric than effect.

4

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 23d

I don't know if repeal was in the Labour manifesto, but the Lords definitely did delete it from the bill - twice! Which was almost unprecedented but really did happen. If the Government had persisted in 2000 they would have lost their entire bill for about a year.

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 24d

Can I just once again address the claim made in this blog that New Labour (or more specifically Tony Blair)"delayed the repeal of s.28 for years". Repeal was included in the Local Government Bill in 1999. The relevant clause was deleted by the House of Lords.

1 1

Paul Evans @courtenayilbert.bsky.social · 25d

What is Reform's position on idolatry? Do they proscribe the display of images of Nigel Farage? And along with the the 16th century puritans, do they disapprove of dancing and Christmas? A manifesto pledge to abolish Christmas could produce an interesting coalition of voters.

1 8