You do realise, don't you that the consultation process is not about deciding what the law should say nor about how it should be interpreted. The Supreme Court has already decided that and set it out very clearly in its judgment.

This is simply untrue. The Supreme Court's judgment sets out the law. Nothing further is needed. Anyone ignoring the judgment is putting themselves at legal risk. Anyone advising them to do so is being very foolish indeed.

I said this of her in July 2023.
www.cyclefree.co.uk/a-missed-opp...

Note the last sentence. Have seen nothing since to change tht view.

We may even - one day - get an answer to the mystery why no-one in government noticed the obvious conflict of interest caused by having the same person in charge of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the CCRC.

The 2nd describes what should happen now. Though it begs two obvious questions:
(1) How far the government in charge for 14 years was responsible for this?; &
(2) If it thought it a problem, why nothing was done about it.

Hello - well I will share my headers and my better posts on here. So don't be too sad! X has become pretty unpleasant too. All social media these days requires picking one's way thro stinky mud. I hang on in there precisely not to cede ground to the loons. Ever the optimist!

Yes - it risks repeating 2 common failures: (1) inflating the housing market rather than building more; & (2) believing that lifting restrictions on banks will lead to growth rather than banks taking badly understood & unsustainable risks.

I agree. He is too gentle. But at least he has tried. Most men have just averted their eyes- in both horror and embarrassment.

Or cats. Bears aren't an improvement, let's face it. When Vance thought to insult us by calling us cat ladies, a lot of women thought "you fool, there's good reasons for that choice".

On 2 maybe - but the impulse for their appallingness towards women has a fundamentally different quality. A man may well not be a rapist etc but still see women as somehow contingent on male permission, as there to serve him. That attitude affects so much else beyond sex.

Robert Crampton has tried to write about it here - www.thetimes.com/article/a458...

I have many thoughts on this. But 2 for now.
1. Male sexuality has a very dark side with which women are familiar but which men are far too unwilling to confront.
2. A lot of men still find it very hard to see women as fully human, as no more than a support animal for men.

We have to assume now that the US under Trump is no longer an ally and may become a hostile actor. The implications - both financial and strategic - are immense.

Yes - it is worrying. NATO is either dead or has to go ahead without the US. The implications of either simply have not been addressed by NATO members, as far as anyone can see.

She is singularly lacking in charm. Now charm can be overrated but a politician - esp a leader - should have some ability to connect, charm, persuade & appear interested in others.

For someone who became leader at her second attempt she seems very vague as to why she wants to be leader.

I think the answer to that is "Oh yes she can."
See www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/ar...