Aileen McHarg
banner
aileenmcharg.bsky.social
Aileen McHarg
@aileenmcharg.bsky.social

Professor of Public Law and Human Rights, Durham University. Joint General Editor, Public Law.

Political science 48%
Law 19%

Plus no stress

Boxing Day > Christmas Day

Comiserations. Hope you find a solution

Christmas Day sunset

Christmas Eve sunset

I hate to break it to you ...

I can give you a few jobs if you are at a loose end

What is this "pre- Christmas holiday" of which you speak?
“Pray tell, the Baron, what sort of gentleman is he?”

“Well…”

If by "reflect", they mean panic about all the things that you are not going to get done by the end of the year as planned, then definitely.

That's lovely

😬

Your cherry coke one is my go to recipe. Its the only legitimate excuse for the existence of cherry coke.

This is not the main basis on which Labour should be "savaging" Reform UK.

Reposted by Aileen McHarg

Keir Starmer will 'absolutely' be Prime Minister by Christmas next year, Labour’s chair has promised, as she savaged Reform UK offering 'nothing' to help with the cost of living

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...
Top minister says Keir Starmer will remain as PM and issues brutal Reform attack
Keir Starmer will 'absolutely' be Prime Minister by Christmas next year, Labour’s chair has promised, as she savaged Reform UK offering 'nothing' to help with the cost of living
www.mirror.co.uk

"Arguable" 🤨

I didn't think there was much point mentioning that ...

Converting hereditary peers into life peers would still mean that they are there as an accident of birth.

But the hereditary peers aren't a reflection of the Tories' relative electoral success, because they don't owe their place to popular* election, even indirectly.

*Hereditary peers voting for themselves does not count.

You were the one that claimed the HL is representative of past voting patterns .... That can only possibly hold for life peers.

I don't think that helps

Also, *nobody* voted for the hereditaries ...

Labour are a deep disappointment on constitutional reform. I agree that much more is required, but I don't think getting rid of an indefensible and politically skewed anomaly can be described as gerrymandering.

But that power exists independently of the removal of hereditaries - and was enthusiastically used by Conservative PMs as well.

I don't think the PM should have that power (at least not in its current form) but it doesn't make your original argument any more convincing.

Given that the hereditary peers have an in-built conservative majority, it's not very persuasive to describe removing that unfair advantage as "gerrymandering" (though I agree reforms should go further).

Reposted by Aileen McHarg

Glasgow to host the Commonwealth Games in 2026. But despite putting public money into it, people in Scotland won't be able to watch it
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
BBC replaced by TNT Sports as Commonwealth Games live broadcaster
The subscription channel takes over from the BBC which had been the principal partner since 1954 and provided free-to-air coverage.
www.bbc.co.uk

I saw those a few weeks ago. Was appalled.
Closing out my year with a journal editor shocker 🧵

Checking new manuscripts today I reviewed a paper attributing 2 papers to me I did not write. A daft thing for an author to do of course. But intrigued I web searched up one of the titles and that's when it got real weird...

For those who are counting, if it is made, this will be the first s.30 Order since 2015 (there were 14 from 1999 until 2015).

Regulation-making powers may alternatively be conferred on the SoS, but if so they cannot be made subject to the consent of the Scottish Ministers.

A s.104 order is also likely to be required.