Nervous Social Democrat
@nervoussocdem.bsky.social
The display name is pretty self-explanatory. My politics are a mix of left-liberalism and social democracy. I’m also a history geek. I am anonymous so I can give opinions without worrying about doing so: despite this, I promise I am mild-mannered.
(Sorry, please remove the accidentally-pompous tone from that and treat it as a straight question!)
December 19, 2025 at 11:23 AM
(Sorry, please remove the accidentally-pompous tone from that and treat it as a straight question!)
Could you unpack that, please? Do you mean that more low-level stuff is coming before the courts? If so, that's very much a magistrates' court (and single justice procedure, which has plenty of krakens of its own) discussion, not a Crown-Court-judge-only discussion ...
December 19, 2025 at 11:22 AM
Could you unpack that, please? Do you mean that more low-level stuff is coming before the courts? If so, that's very much a magistrates' court (and single justice procedure, which has plenty of krakens of its own) discussion, not a Crown-Court-judge-only discussion ...
Which means that *in our system and context*, I don't think judge-only trials for crimes attracting 18-36-month sentences (actually, it could be any length: they're not proposing to limit judge-only Crown Court jurisdiction) a) represent a major reduction of a core right and b) aren't as legitimate.
December 19, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Which means that *in our system and context*, I don't think judge-only trials for crimes attracting 18-36-month sentences (actually, it could be any length: they're not proposing to limit judge-only Crown Court jurisdiction) a) represent a major reduction of a core right and b) aren't as legitimate.
No, or else we'd have to abolish the magistrates' courts and most of the democratic world wouldn't have fair trials. But a) law is cultural and b) our system is designed around the fact that we do have a lay element (juries or magistrates) in the vast majority of cases.
December 19, 2025 at 10:48 AM
No, or else we'd have to abolish the magistrates' courts and most of the democratic world wouldn't have fair trials. But a) law is cultural and b) our system is designed around the fact that we do have a lay element (juries or magistrates) in the vast majority of cases.
I do, incidentally, think it's interesting that Labour is so clearly the most anti-jury of the major parties and has been since 2000. Is it because they lack both the anti-Europeanism of the Tories and Reform and the civil-libertarian instincts of the Lib Dems and the Greens?
December 19, 2025 at 10:46 AM
I do, incidentally, think it's interesting that Labour is so clearly the most anti-jury of the major parties and has been since 2000. Is it because they lack both the anti-Europeanism of the Tories and Reform and the civil-libertarian instincts of the Lib Dems and the Greens?
Not that the economic case for Scottish independence isn't terrible or that the Scottish independence movement doesn't have plenty of nasty elements, but there are degrees. Of course (and this could cut both ways on nastiness), the possibility of Scottish independence is also significantly greater.
December 17, 2025 at 3:04 PM
Not that the economic case for Scottish independence isn't terrible or that the Scottish independence movement doesn't have plenty of nasty elements, but there are degrees. Of course (and this could cut both ways on nastiness), the possibility of Scottish independence is also significantly greater.
It could (though it's not inevitable) also make Welsh politics uglier than Scottish politics. The fact that a) the economic case for Welsh independence is much worse and b) the history of how Wales ended up in the UK is much nastier could make for a much more essentialist independence narrative.
December 17, 2025 at 3:02 PM
It could (though it's not inevitable) also make Welsh politics uglier than Scottish politics. The fact that a) the economic case for Welsh independence is much worse and b) the history of how Wales ended up in the UK is much nastier could make for a much more essentialist independence narrative.
I think a large section of the Labour membership focuses too much on how much of her electoral problem is “fair” (not all of it, but voters don’t have to be fair) and on how much people could like her backstory as opposed to how much they do like her.
December 17, 2025 at 12:49 PM
I think a large section of the Labour membership focuses too much on how much of her electoral problem is “fair” (not all of it, but voters don’t have to be fair) and on how much people could like her backstory as opposed to how much they do like her.
I do also think we really should find a way for ministers to address the other chamber, or at the very least, for Cabinet ministers in the Lords to address the Commons. (I know parliamentary traditionalists will say this can’t be done, and I say “You can find a way if you want to. Don’t be absurd.”)
December 16, 2025 at 1:06 PM
I do also think we really should find a way for ministers to address the other chamber, or at the very least, for Cabinet ministers in the Lords to address the Commons. (I know parliamentary traditionalists will say this can’t be done, and I say “You can find a way if you want to. Don’t be absurd.”)
Yes - I definitely said “a few” deliberately: I’m not suggesting you can have a total “specialist juniors, politico SoS” divide. I broadly agree on Lords ministers (setting the fact I think the Lords should be a fundamentally different chamber aside for now!).
December 16, 2025 at 1:02 PM
Yes - I definitely said “a few” deliberately: I’m not suggesting you can have a total “specialist juniors, politico SoS” divide. I broadly agree on Lords ministers (setting the fact I think the Lords should be a fundamentally different chamber aside for now!).
I suspect this is a fudge designed to annoy everyone and win no friends, but I do love a good dose of difference-splitting.
December 16, 2025 at 12:59 PM
I suspect this is a fudge designed to annoy everyone and win no friends, but I do love a good dose of difference-splitting.
Whereas a few junior ministers who are more of a mix of the political and the specialist, or even more of the latter, do have potential value to my mind and might well complement their SoS. (Though whether this works in practice as opposed to theory is very open to question, I accept). 2/2
December 16, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Whereas a few junior ministers who are more of a mix of the political and the specialist, or even more of the latter, do have potential value to my mind and might well complement their SoS. (Though whether this works in practice as opposed to theory is very open to question, I accept). 2/2
I actually think the argument for a constituency link is stronger for a SoS than a junior minister. The former is clearly a big-picture job, applying strategic and political prioritisation to core trade-offs, plus fighting your department’s corner, and being politically plugged in is key to both. 1/
December 16, 2025 at 12:58 PM
I actually think the argument for a constituency link is stronger for a SoS than a junior minister. The former is clearly a big-picture job, applying strategic and political prioritisation to core trade-offs, plus fighting your department’s corner, and being politically plugged in is key to both. 1/
Which is bad for European security, EU-UK relations, and bilateral relations with other European countries alike. (Sorry, slightly stream-of-consciousness. HMT is only an indirect contributory factor and it’s not the biggest factor. But I don’t think it’s irrelevant.) 3/3
December 13, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Which is bad for European security, EU-UK relations, and bilateral relations with other European countries alike. (Sorry, slightly stream-of-consciousness. HMT is only an indirect contributory factor and it’s not the biggest factor. But I don’t think it’s irrelevant.) 3/3
But the commitment to optionality here combines with political volatility and the divisiveness of ‘Europe’ (we differentiate between the EU and European NATO, but does that hold under Reform and does the rest of Europe think it does?) and helps make even the things we can offer count for less. 2/
December 13, 2025 at 5:57 PM
But the commitment to optionality here combines with political volatility and the divisiveness of ‘Europe’ (we differentiate between the EU and European NATO, but does that hold under Reform and does the rest of Europe think it does?) and helps make even the things we can offer count for less. 2/
It occurs to me that HMT is also one of a whole range of factors which is making the UK look less and less reliable as a geopolitical partner. I’m not sure people here have grasped that our defence spending rises are pretty anaemic in European terms, albeit from a high-ish base. 1/
December 13, 2025 at 5:57 PM
It occurs to me that HMT is also one of a whole range of factors which is making the UK look less and less reliable as a geopolitical partner. I’m not sure people here have grasped that our defence spending rises are pretty anaemic in European terms, albeit from a high-ish base. 1/
*dead letter, obviously.
December 13, 2025 at 1:35 PM
*dead letter, obviously.
Yes, if you don’t couple that with a bit of attention to the Treasury on how the paying up takes place, you risk getting Liz Truss. But that isn’t the same as letting it go “Moscow may think NATO is a complete letter, but the main thing is that we’re on course to meet our fiscal rules by 2029/30.”
December 13, 2025 at 1:33 PM
Yes, if you don’t couple that with a bit of attention to the Treasury on how the paying up takes place, you risk getting Liz Truss. But that isn’t the same as letting it go “Moscow may think NATO is a complete letter, but the main thing is that we’re on course to meet our fiscal rules by 2029/30.”
Don't get me wrong: personally, I very much hope we do rejoin one day. But I can see why Labour is very much inclined to say "Let's tidy things up around the edges in term one, and then let's see ... IF we get another term."
December 11, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Don't get me wrong: personally, I very much hope we do rejoin one day. But I can see why Labour is very much inclined to say "Let's tidy things up around the edges in term one, and then let's see ... IF we get another term."
And the politics and the policy intermesh, since EU accession requires a sustained pro-EU majority in the country, a multi-term pro-EU majority in Parliament *and* an EU willing to readmit us (the latter probably requiring some very clear assurances we won't put them through 2016-21 all over again).
December 11, 2025 at 10:15 AM
And the politics and the policy intermesh, since EU accession requires a sustained pro-EU majority in the country, a multi-term pro-EU majority in Parliament *and* an EU willing to readmit us (the latter probably requiring some very clear assurances we won't put them through 2016-21 all over again).